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]

....The trial (if there was one) is fiddled to blame the Jews....

How is that possible, when Bible tells it was the Romans who did all that?

...Without that and Wellingtons excellent tactics, Napoleon could and should have won.

Too many mistakes leads to lose. Epic history tv has really nice documentaries of Napoleons wars, I recommend to watch them.

Thanks. I may watch that. I watch a lot of military history.

As to the blaming of the Jews, don't you recall the washing of the hands?

Matthew 27.24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Matthew makes explicit was is dropped in Big Hints all through the trial - that the Romans did the crucifixion, sure, but it was the Jews through the Sadducees or Sanhedrin that were really to blame, and Matthew of all the gospels (showing he made this up as otherwise why does nobody else mention it?) has the Jews wish the blame on themselves as a group and all the Jews to come after. Man, that Greek mistranslator really hated the Jews.

[AchillesHeel]

In short - correct me if I am wrong - you are not claiming the Christians did not have the belief that Jesus physically died and then following his death returned to life in some form. You are only claiming that the numerous testimonies Paul affirms to , were all some kind of supernatural manifestation or experience which convinced the individuals concerned of a risen Christ . And these experience happened prior to Paul writing his own experience.

Would that be a fair summary of your position?

More or less, yes but first and foremost the belief was based on a specific Scriptural interpretation as 1 Cor 15:3-4 makes clear. Thus, the belief could have been arrived at prior to any such experiences. It's just that the experiences served as confirmation of the already arrived at belief.

1 CORINTHIANS 15

For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;+ 4 and that he was buried,+ yes, that he was raised up+ on the third day+ according to the Scriptures;+ 5

This can read that Paul was taught that Christ died and was raised up. And that these two teachings were supported by (fulfilled) Hebrew prophecy. In any case, its clear that Paul was handed a tradition of Jesus dying and subsequently being alive again so I cannot see how one can accept that and still claim...

there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

or ask ....

Do you have any evidence that the "oral tradition" contained such stories?

You accept Paul's testimony as reliable evidence, he testifies that he received a resurrection tradition (however that came about) and yet claim there is no evidence prior to Paul that such a tradition existed. Can you explain this apparent contradiction in your position?

I claimed there is no evidence of the physical appearance tradition prior to the composition of the gospels in which those stories are found. Paul attests to a belief in the Resurrection and "appearances" of some sort, yes, but he gives no evidence the "appearances" involved touching a resurrected corpse or watching him eat. All that stuff develops later.

"In light of the first description of resurrection appearances recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-8, whenever their occurrence before the development of the creedal tradition Paul transmits, the experiences of early Christians were spiritual visions of Jesus or ecstatic experiences, not experiences of a bodily risen Lord." - Kathleen Corley, Maranatha, p. 129 citing Fuller Formation of the Resurrection Narratives pp. 32-34, Ludemann Resurrection pp. 54-60, Riley Resurrection Reconsidered 68, 179.

To expand on this idea - the early Christians believed Jesus had a "body" of some sort but that is not the same thing as actually seeing or touching that body in physical reality. Especially, if they believed the Risen Jesus could "appear" to them from heaven. Paul equates his "vision" of Jesus with the other appearances in the creed so the only inference supported by evidence is that these were spiritual encounters.

The skeptic does not need to bother wasting time on arguing against hallucinations if no one ever hallucinated these things in the first place and they're all just made up stories.

[1213]

As to the blaming of the Jews, don't you recall the washing of the hands?

Yes, doesn't take the blame from him, he is the one who ultimately decided what will happen. Sifting the blame to a mob, doesn't really help. And I wouldn't be surprised, if the mob was hired by the rulers of that time, so that they could then blame the people. At least nowadays it seems to work like that.

[TRANSPONDER]

As to the blaming of the Jews, don't you recall the washing of the hands?

Yes, doesn't take the blame from him, he is the one who ultimately decided what will happen. Sifting the blame to a mob, doesn't really help. And I wouldn't be surprised, if the mob was hired by the rulers of that time, so that they could then blame the people. At least nowadays it seems to work like that.

We seem half in line. Even if you are being a bit vague and fielding possible hypotheses. Where does it say the priests hired the mob?

[1213]

As to the blaming of the Jews, don't you recall the washing of the hands?

Yes, doesn't take the blame from him, he is the one who ultimately decided what will happen. Sifting the blame to a mob, doesn't really help. And I wouldn't be surprised, if the mob was hired by the rulers of that time, so that they could then blame the people. At least nowadays it seems to work like that.

We seem half in line. Even if you are being a bit vague and fielding possible hypotheses. Where does it say the priests hired the mob?

It doesn't say so. But, I believe rulers are mostly the same. Today you can hire a mob, so I have no doubt it was possible also before. And it is a nice way to get politicians to do things that they would not otherwise like to do, because they know their actions don't have general support. Why do I believe this happens? Because "riots" that are not what the leaders want, are usually suppressed, but riots that are what they like, are allowed to happen and participants are not judged in the same way as for example in the case of Jan 6 tourist event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowds_on_Demand

[TRANSPONDER]

As to the blaming of the Jews, don't you recall the washing of the hands?

Yes, doesn't take the blame from him, he is the one who ultimately decided what will happen. Sifting the blame to a mob, doesn't really help. And I wouldn't be surprised, if the mob was hired by the rulers of that time, so that they could then blame the people. At least nowadays it seems to work like that.

We seem half in line. Even if you are being a bit vague and fielding possible hypotheses. Where does it say the priests hired the mob?

It doesn't say so. But, I believe rulers are mostly the same. Today you can hire a mob, so I have no doubt it was possible also before. And it is a nice way to get politicians to do things that they would not otherwise like to do, because they know their actions don't have general support. Why do I believe this happens? Because "riots" that are not what the leaders want, are usually suppressed, but riots that are what they like, are allowed to happen and participants are not judged in the same way as for example in the case of Jan 6 tourist event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowds_on_Demand

The attack on the capitol was not a hired mob but a Maga crowd fired up to do a specific thing. The whole of America, who are not buying the palpable lie that they were peaceful tourists or the contradictory one that they were Antifa do not deserve the same condemnation, and neither do the Jews who up to then seem to have adored Jesus. The 'crowd' too, are not representative of Jews as whole, even if we trust the account.

I don't believe it at all, and I think the crucifixion of Jesus (a real event) was purely Roman and at most required only the Sanhedrin collaboration with some of their hirelings to track down and arrest Jesus, which might be true. If there was a trial (I have my doubts) the Sadducees hardly needed to be involved. The Blasphemy charge is nonsense and wasn't used anyway. It was subversion of Roman authority - not Priestly - authority that saw Jesus stapled up. The whole story is skewed to shift the blame from Rome to the Jews through the actions of the Priests and at most a bunch of paid hirelings.

The Christians historically blaming the Jews for that makes them guilty of centuries of persecution, and is a sentiment not vanished today.

P.s did you even read the article you linked? It is a firm that hired out actors to pose as some kind of person or another. They are in no way comparable to even a bunch of politicised rioters, much less a wole population to be blamed for it.

[1213]

The attack on the capitol was not a hired mob but a Maga crowd fired up to do a specific thing.

I think it is wrong to call the tourist round an attack. If you look at the videos of the event, the people were let in and walked peacefully around the building, like tourists. They didn't even burn cars, as customary in "peaceful riots" that the rulers like.

But, I agree, most of them, the ones jailed and persecuted were not hired. And in previous post I tried to say, you can see who are hired* by how they are treated. For example there is a videos of person called Ray Epps, who incited the whole "attack". He is free but people who did less probably still rot in Biden's dungeons. The double standard is appalling and tells that there is no justice only government tyranny.

*hired in this case can mean a person that is arranged to do it by the government.

[TRANSPONDER]

The attack on the capitol was not a hired mob but a Maga crowd fired up to do a specific thing.

I think it is wrong to call the tourist round an attack. If you look at the videos of the event, the people were let in and walked peacefully around the building, like tourists. They didn't even burn cars, as customary in "peaceful riots" that the rulers like.

But, I agree, most of them, the ones jailed and persecuted were not hired. And in previous post I tried to say, you can see who are hired* by how they are treated. For example there is a videos of person called Ray Epps, who incited the whole "attack". He is free but people who did less probably still rot in Biden's dungeons. The double standard is appalling and tells that there is no justice only government tyranny.

*hired in this case can mean a person that is arranged to do it by the government.

Even if this is not the politics forum, I have to dismiss this absurd lie. I saw the events as they happened. I have seen the videos afterwards. They broke in. It was an insurrection aimed at preventing Biden becoming president. They even wanted to hang Mike Pence because he did one thing that I respect him for (and this was the Tyke that dragged crocoduck creationism into the senate) and that was to refuse to block certification of the election, at the risk of being lynched by that mob. Even if they have been Invited in and peacefully done what they came to do, it was a crime and a disgrace. But it was forceful, if not to say, violent. And Trump fired them up to do it, and watched approvingly on TV as they did it while his staff begged him to issue a request for them to go home.

Oh, and Biden's dungeons? And where are they, pray? In that secret basement in the Pizza outlet? And so far as know how the insurrectionists were treated depends on (a) whether they confessed and repented or (b) went for a plea deal. Not because some were hired Democrat or Police or Antifa agents. That's just more crazy Maga lies and Qanon conspiracy theories.

And now back to the topic, as I hear that Texas and Florida may come into play. My Flatearth friend, I wouldn't be surprised if Alabama flips.

And if you hadn't heard it before, here is my crazy conspiracy theory.

The Maccabeans revolted against Greek (Gentile) rule. These people were zealots. They won and the Hasmoneans were kings of the Jews and High priests. Messiahs. King Jannaeus soon found the zealots a problem and crucified them. Yes, it was a punishment for rebels before Rome was an empire. The same with Herod. He crucified zealot rebels or bandits. In fact the Kings of the Jews crucified 'robbers' (lestes) before Jesus. Varus (1) had to put down some messianic insurrections while Archelaus was in Rome. Including Simon, whose followers thought he resurrected in three days, if the Gabriel stone is read aright. Then Rome took over Judea as a province (not Galilee so the tax didn't apply to them) and Antipas arrested the Baptist who looked like a messianic rebel to me, not just to him. Jesus took over the mission and did it the same way. Gathered support (5,000 men from the zealot nest in Bethsaida). That is the answer to another contradiction (totally missed it seems). The transfiguration never happened, but is the acceptance by the crowd (of men, in companies of fifty like a Roman legion) of Jesus' messianic mission. Turned into a miracle of dead saints and God's voice. John has never heard of this, but knows the people wanted to make Jesus a king 'by force', but implies that Jesus going into the hills was a rejection of this awful idea not a ceremonial confirmation of it.



Contradiction sorted, but mot in the Bible apologists would like. It seems that Jesus made him final plans in the old safe space for zealot insurrectionists, the same place as the Baptist, Peraea. And I think did the one prophecy he fulfilled: rode to the Temple - not through the city, but down the track from Bethsaida over the bridge, through Solomon's porch and there, I think a battle erupted between Jesus, Son of the Father (God) or Jesus bar - Abba and his 5,000 followers, and Pilate on festival watch with 1000 Auxiliaries, who mixed the blood of those Galileans with their sacrifices. As Luke tells us and which event vanished from history, but maybe was replaced by that Christian forgery, the Flavian testament.
Maybe Jesus 'slipped out of the Temple' (John 8.59) and was grabbed later at Gethsemane 'Have you come out with clubs and swords like i was some kind of insurrectionist?' You bet they had.

Jesus and a few of his 'robber' followers were executed, and Jesus died, probably, but the disciples (Simon first) imagined Jesus' messianic spirit had gone back to heaven and would come again in their lifetimes. The promise of Jonah and the idea in the Gabriel stone. They didn't even need to invent the idea.
This hotbed of zealotry was subversive, so the Roman governors and their collaborators, the Sadducee High priests, of course 'persecuted' that church using assistants like the loyal Roman citizen Saul.

Here is the very speculative bit. Saul was expecting the last days too, as he was also a pharisee Jew. This meant the Jews would be in charge and his fellow citizens (gentiles) would be the ones picking cotton. But if they became God - believers, they would be saved as much as the Jews. But Romans would never accept Jewish laws, so they had to go.
Easy. Jesus by a death that was a sin sacrifice, had wiped out all sin, so one only need believe on God...no, better make that Jesus...and they were God's chosen as much as any Jew. After all, God can make children of Abraham out of stones. (actually no, He can't, but who says it has to make sense?).

Paul wrote his argument in the letter to the Romans (it is obviously his Thesis and he revised it later on, so it must be his first Letter and never mind scholarly opinion). While setting up his churches, he rattled the tin to buy acceptance during the famine of 45, and about 51 was summoned to explain his revised Judaism. It seems that James set out the Noahide rules that would give Gentiles a stake in the next world, but all was not well between Paul and the 'super apostles' as he sneeringly calls them.

It all changed in Nero's time (60 A.D) when his misrule provoked rebellions in Britain and Judea. The Romans beat the zealots and burned the Temple. Which the Christians saw as God's punishment on the Jews for rejecting Jesus.

Which, with the central claim of resurrection, is the central message of the gospels.

There it is, my crazy theory that explains all the problems. Believe it or not, as you like.

(1) Yes, the same one that came to a sticky end in the Teutenburg forest.

[fredonly]

The attack on the capitol was not a hired mob but a Maga crowd fired up to do a specific thing.

I think it is wrong to call the tourist round an attack. If you look at the videos of the event, the people were let in and walked peacefully around the building, like tourists. They didn't even burn cars, as customary in "peaceful riots" that the rulers like.

I've seen some videos of people just wandering around the Capitol, and it may very well be that most of them didn't engage in violence - rather, they got caught up in the frenzy. But everyone who entered the Capitol that day necessarily passed through the barricades and at least trespassed (some also vandalized the Capitol, defecating and urinating in it). But this fact sits alongside these facts: 1) 100% of the people who came to D.C. on Jan 6 were induced to come there based on two lies: that the election was stolen, and there was something they could do about it that day. 2) The Capitol was broken into; it was locked, and there were barricades erected to make it clear it was off-limits; further, there's video of a window being broken, and people climbing in; 3) The Ashlii Babbit video clearly shows an angry mob breaking through an internal door that was locked to protect members of Congress. 4) Some were chanting for Pence to be hung - and this animosity was caused by another of Trump's lies: that Pence had the power to reject the certified election results. 5) Trump had the power to stop them at any time, but waited over 2 hours to do so - finally succumbing to the pressure he was getting from everyone around him. This violated his oath of office.

you can see who are hired* by how they are treated. For example there is a videos of person called Ray Epps, who incited the whole "attack". He is free but people who did less probably still rot in Biden's dungeons. The double standard is appalling and tells that there is no justice only government tyranny.

*hired in this case can mean a person that is arranged to do it by the government.

You reference two irrational conspiracy theories: 1) that the government staged the event; 2) that Ray Epps incited the attack.
Conspiracy theories are irrational because they entail jumping to a biased conclusion, looking for evidence that is consistent with that conclusion and treating it as "proof", and rationalizing contrary evidence (often by claiming it's misinformation spread by the conspirators - and then treating this contrary evidence as additional "proof" of the conspiracy), and ignoring the implausibility of a massive conspiracy involving large numbers of people who flawlessly execute the plan and all of whom remain perpetually loyal to maintaining the secrecy. (If you're interested, here's a video I did last year on Ray Epps: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNTsbfhd/)

[1213]

But everyone who entered the Capitol that day necessarily passed through the barricades and at least trespassed (some also vandalized the Capitol, defecating and urinating in it).

In riots that "democrats" approve people do much worse and are let free. That is why, I think vandalizing is wrong, but it was not worse. I think there should be justice and people should be judged the same way. In this case there seems to be really bad double standard in U.S. justice system, and that is really disturbing.

But this fact sits alongside these facts: 1) 100% of the people who came to D.C. on Jan 6 were induced to come there based on two lies: that the election was stolen, and there was something they could do about it that day. 2) The Capitol was broken into; it was locked, and there were barricades erected to make it clear it was off-limits; further, there's video of a window being broken, and people climbing in; 3) The Ashlii Babbit video clearly shows an angry mob breaking through an internal door that was locked to protect members of Congress. 4) Some were chanting for Pence to be hung - and this animosity was caused by another of Trump's lies: that Pence had the power to reject the certified election results. 5) Trump had the power to stop them at any time, but waited over 2 hours to do so - finally succumbing to the pressure he was getting from everyone around him. This violated his oath of office.

I think it is very interesting that at the same time part of the people were let in and yet it some people allegedly broke in. There seems to have been two groups. But, none of them can be honestly called revolutionary, or insurrectionists. The goal of Trump and his supporters was to make sure that the result is counted correctly, not to make a coup or something like that.

And yes, it is true that there was angry mob, some say it was because they were first shot by rubber bullets, which then led to more violence.

I don't think there is any good reason to blame Trump for any of the violence, if one has really listened what he said.

that Ray Epps incited the attack.

He is the only one who provably incited the "attack". How do you explain he is free, when he on the video tells to the people that they need to go into the Capitol? Trump didn't do anything that serious and yet he is called insurrectionist. When Ray Epps is not in jail, it is wrong that anyone else of those who went to the building are.

On this video there is a part where you can see Ray Epps inciting people, if you doubt my words.
https://rumble.com/vofett-who-is-ray-epps.html