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.

[fredonly]

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.

You had referred to the Capitol break-in as a “tourist round” and said, “If you look at the videos of the event, the people were let in and walked peacefully around the building, like tourists”. I pointed out the wrongs that were committed that day. At least you are acknowledging it was wrong.

Yes, all vandalizing is wrong. But your assertion that “democrats approve people do much worse and let free” – is partisan conspiracy theory. What Democratic leaders have spoken in favor of vandalism? Who has been “set free”? Republicans making this conspiracy theory claim tend to overlook the fact that acts committed by the Capitol mob were caught on camera, and some were so self-righteous that they bragged about it on Facebook and/or to friends and family – who turned them in. Identifying bad actors is rarely this easy, so it’s fallacious to compare incidents based on the number of convictions.

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.

You’ve ignored all 5 facts that I listed and are instead trying to argue the semantics of “insurrection” and to whom it may or may not apply.

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.

Red herring. "Some would say" is not evidence - many people believe the election was stolen, but none can provide a good reason for that belief. Multiple members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys have been convicted of seditious conspiracy for the Jan 6 events based on strong evidence - there's testimony and text messages that reveal their plans for Jan 6.

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.

You’re making excuses. Respond directly to the 5 points I listed, and to the actions I describe below.

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? 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

Epps called for “going into the Capitol” on Jan 5. He testified that he didn’t realize the Capitol was not open. Epps never entered the Capitol, and there is no evidence of him committing violence. There is video of Epps speaking to another protester (Ryan Samsel). Epps said he told Samsel, “relax the police are doing their job”. Samsel corroborated this.

When Ray Epps is not in jail, it is wrong that anyone else of those who went to the building are.

There’s no evidence of Epps committing a crime! Allegations by Mark Levin and Tucker Carslon were entirely speculative – pure conspiracy theory, fitting the one fact (the Jan 5 video of Epps) to the speculation, and ignoring Epps public support of Trump.

Epps is (quite rightly) suing Fox News for spreading these false allegations - and it's sad that people like you have fallen for it.

Trump didn't do anything that serious

You’re in denial. Trump lied about a stolen election. He tried to get DOJ officials to tell that same lie – AFTER they had debunked every single fraud allegation Trump brought up. See this video: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNwBwehx/ Trump continued to spread the “stolen election” allegation after that, firing up his supporters. The “stolen election” was the theme of his Jan 6 speech, where he repeated specific claims (e.g. the Fulton County allegation) that testimony shows had been debunked directly to him. How is this not serious? Trump hired 2 independent research groups (Berkeley Research Group, and Sympatico Systems) to hunt for election fraud - and both reported that there was not sufficient fraud to change the election results. It wasn't the answer he wanted, so he didn't make this public. So Trump was given an abundance of evidence that debunked his fraud claims. How is it not serious that, despite this, he continued to spread the "stolen election" lie?

He knew about the Capitol break-in but did nothing for 2 hours: how is this not serious? 20 minutes after the Capitol had been broken into, Trump tweeted, “Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution." How is that not serious? He had previously pressured Pence to reject certified electoral votes: how is that not serious?

[1213]

...But your assertion that “democrats approve people do much worse and let free” – is partisan conspiracy theory. What Democratic leaders have spoken in favor of vandalism? Who has been “set free”?

I think here is a fine collection of "democrats" inciting violence:


If Trump wins, I think we can expect much violence and very likely civil war. That would explain why "democrats" have imported so many "illegals", they need an army and when they don't have enough support from American citizens, they have to use foreign legion.

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.

You’ve ignored all 5 facts that I listed and are instead trying to argue the semantics of “insurrection” and to whom it may or may not apply.

Firstly, I don't think it has been proven that the election was not stolen. "Democrats" insists it was not, but it is possible it was stolen.
Secondly, one door was opened so that Trump supporters got in without braking anything. This makes it weird, why did some people brake a window, when it was not necessary.
Thirdly, please show where Trump says Pence had the "power to reject the certified election results"?
And lastly, what and how could Trump have stopped it? Was he not outside speaking to his supporters? I think his supporters were next to him, not in some other place doing violence.

There’s no evidence of Epps committing a crime!

Ok, that is fine, my point is not to show he committed a crime, only that he was the worst case. If he is not a criminal, neither should any Trump supporter be.

You’re in denial. Trump lied about a stolen election.

I believe the election was stolen. No good proof that the election was fair and honest. That Trump haters say it was not stolen, doesn't really convince me, but I understand if it is enough for those who support "democrats".

[TRANSPONDER]

...But your assertion that “democrats approve people do much worse and let free” – is partisan conspiracy theory. What Democratic leaders have spoken in favor of vandalism? Who has been “set free”?

I think here is a fine collection of "democrats" inciting violence:


If Trump wins, I think we can expect much violence and very likely civil war. That would explain why "democrats" have imported so many "illegals", they need an army and when they don't have enough support from American citizens, they have to use foreign legion.

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.

You’ve ignored all 5 facts that I listed and are instead trying to argue the semantics of “insurrection” and to whom it may or may not apply.

Firstly, I don't think it has been proven that the election was not stolen. "Democrats" insists it was not, but it is possible it was stolen.
Secondly, one door was opened so that Trump supporters got in without braking anything. This makes it weird, why did some people brake a window, when it was not necessary.
Thirdly, please show where Trump says Pence had the "power to reject the certified election results"?
And lastly, what and how could Trump have stopped it? Was he not outside speaking to his supporters? I think his supporters were next to him, not in some other place doing violence.

There’s no evidence of Epps committing a crime!

Ok, that is fine, my point is not to show he committed a crime, only that he was the worst case. If he is not a criminal, neither should any Trump supporter be.

You’re in denial. Trump lied about a stolen election.

I believe the election was stolen. No good proof that the election was fair and honest. That Trump haters say it was not stolen, doesn't really convince me, but I understand if it is enough for those who support "democrats".

Trump brought many cases and not one showed a case that the election was stolen in any way. The only examples of voter fraud turned out to be by Republicans, rather with the Republican fake electors scheme which is now being dragged through the courts. And we already see red flags that Trump is setting up to deny his loss if he loses the next one, which by all the signs, he will.

Any chance to get back to the topic? Though I put my hand up to maybe derailing it. Since i see Maga and Christian fundamentalism as not only two sides of the same dud coin, but each infecting the other. "Democrats" as you put it, don't flaunt religion to gain fake credit for their campaign.

[fredonly]

...But your assertion that “democrats approve people do much worse and let free” – is partisan conspiracy theory. What Democratic leaders have spoken in favor of vandalism? Who has been “set free”?

I think here is a fine collection of "democrats" inciting violence:

Your diverting from the point I was making in response to your assertion:

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.

FWIW, I would prefer all politicians refrain from making the kinds of statements your video quotes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with your unsupported implication that there's a double standard in the justice system.

I don't think it has been proven that the election was not stolen

You think like a conspiracy theorist: treating the fact that a speculative theory (unsupported by evidence) should be taken seriously simply because it can't be disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

one door was opened so that Trump supporters got in without braking anything...

You continue to evade my points! Here they are again:
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.

And lastly, what and how could Trump have stopped it?

The way he DID stop it...2+ hours later, when he tweeted: ""I know your pain. I know your hurt," he begins. "We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You've seen the way others are treated. ... I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace." Immediately after, the throng started leaving the Capitol.

He could also have called out the National Guard when the barricades were breached. It was Mike Pence who did that (see this).

Ok, that is fine, my point is not to show [Epps] committed a crime, only that he was the worst case. If he is not a criminal, neither should any Trump supporter be.

False equivalence. People have been charged and convicted of criminal trespass because they entered the Capitol when it was closed. Epps didn't do that. A number of Proud Boys and Oath keepers have been convicted of seditious conspiracy because they planned in advance to break into the Capitol (and do worse). Epps didn't do that. Some have been charged with destruction or theft of government property - Epps did neither.

You repeated show that you do no more than regurgitate the Trumpist false narratives: you uncritically accepted Mark Levin's conspiracy theory, and you uncritically accept the claim that there's double standard in the justice system. Start looking for the support for those claims before referencing them.

I believe the election was stolen. No good proof that the election was fair and honest.

I'm not at all surprised that you accept this irrational conspiracy theory.

That Trump haters say it was not stolen, doesn't really convince me

You shouldn't believe it was a fair election just "Trump haters" said so. You also shouldn't react to what they say by assuming the opposite. If you were rational, you'd base your opinion on evidence and reasoning. If you were to do that, and avoid uncritically accepting fraud allegations, you'll see that there's no basis to believe the election was stolen.

[fredonly]

Any chance to get back to the topic? Though I put my hand up to maybe derailing it.

Good point, and I'm sorry I got carried away. I'll refrain from replying further about the Trump nonsense in this thread. If 1213 wants to reply to my last post, I'd like him to do so in a new thread in the political subforum.

[1213]

... but that has absolutely nothing to do with your unsupported implication that there's a double standard in the justice system.

Sorry, I remembered that the video showed also part of the Kenosha riots, where people did many bad things, but didn't get the same judgment than people in Jan6 tourist event.

....on two lies: that the election was stolen, and there was something they could do about it that day....

I think it is wrong to call it a lie, because it is possible still that it is true. And there was a small chance for to get the government to check the claims before making the decision.

The way he DID stop it...2+ hours later, when he tweeted: ""I know your pain. I know your hurt," he begins. "We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You've seen the way others are treated. ... I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace." Immediately after, the throng started leaving the Capitol.

Why do you think that was the thing they listened, when they were clearly not listening Trump earlier?

He could also have called out the National Guard when the barricades were breached. It was Mike Pence who did that (see this).

Interesting, by what I know, Trump had asked national guard to the place before the event , but apparently Pelosi didn't approve it, probably because it would have ruined the false insurrection.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said last week that former President Donald Trump did in fact request National Guard troops be deployed in Washington D.C. before the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/0 ... testimony/

...planned in advance to break into the Capitol (and do worse). Epps didn't do that.

Do you have the evidence? Epps did that on the video.

[TRANSPONDER]

... but that has absolutely nothing to do with your unsupported implication that there's a double standard in the justice system.

Sorry, I remembered that the video showed also part of the Kenosha riots, where people did many bad things, but didn't get the same judgment than people in Jan6 tourist event.

....on two lies: that the election was stolen, and there was something they could do about it that day....

I think it is wrong to call it a lie, because it is possible still that it is true. And there was a small chance for to get the government to check the claims before making the decision.

The way he DID stop it...2+ hours later, when he tweeted: ""I know your pain. I know your hurt," he begins. "We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You've seen the way others are treated. ... I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace." Immediately after, the throng started leaving the Capitol.

Why do you think that was the thing they listened, when they were clearly not listening Trump earlier?

He could also have called out the National Guard when the barricades were breached. It was Mike Pence who did that (see this).

Interesting, by what I know, Trump had asked national guard to the place before the event , but apparently Pelosi didn't approve it, probably because it would have ruined the false insurrection.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said last week that former President Donald Trump did in fact request National Guard troops be deployed in Washington D.C. before the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/0 ... testimony/

...planned in advance to break into the Capitol (and do worse). Epps didn't do that.

Do you have the evidence? Epps did that on the video.

Trump makes many claims, and some I know a re lies. So I know he instigated the crowd to push into the capital and sup the election being certified. It makes no sense that he would mobilise the national guard to stop them doing it. The evidence is that he sat in his office watching it on TV and ignoring pleas to stop the insurrection. He was president. It's just evasion to blame someone else for not stopping it. They followed is instructions all the time, to start it and stop it when eventually he was pressured to say so. Pence has refused to comply and they couldn't find the officials. It was over. Trump finally said go home. Next step was to try to overturn the elv ction through the courts. Not a scrap of evidence that the election was other than valid. You just repeat Maga lies, and ignore the actual evidence.

Now here's me straying off the topic, but the coming election is one of the most important ever, for the world as well as the US. Already an election steal is being put in place at state level in case trump loses, which is why many Republicans are siding with Democrats. They know that US democracy is under threat. I see as a win for world dictatorships if he wins, or steals, the election.

Any chance to get back to the topic? Though I put my hand up to maybe derailing it.

Good point, and I'm sorry I got carried away. I'll refrain from replying further about the Trump nonsense in this thread. If 1213 wants to reply to my last post, I'd like him to do so in a new thread in the political subforum.

I'm more to blame. And the resurrection is my pet subject too, along with the Nativities...the Exodus....the sermon material...and most of the rest of the book. But 100 days to go and world democracy under threat. Can't help being concerned, and after all the Maga cult of lies and Christian fundamentalism and Creationism are two sides of the same dud dollar.

[fredonly]

[Replying to 1213 in post #146]
I responded to your post in a new thread I created in the Politics subforum:

viewtopic.php?p=1155547#p1155547

[1213]

....He was president....

Continues in: viewtopic.php?p=1155590#p1155590

[TRANSPONDER]

....He was president....

Continues in: viewtopic.php?p=1155590#p1155590

Besy ignored as a pack of obduscation and denial.

Just to take the last, The US gas Femocracy in the right to vote and the votes to figure.

The threat is in denying the result and trying to take over, using a mob if necessary, or planning to do it at state level as we have now (that attempt in Georgia is being challenged, thankfully) and never mind what Trump would do (refill all administrative position with his creatures and lock up all who disagree (seen his latest pic of all his opponents in prison garb?) The classic method of dictators. That is what Trump wants to do and is why many republicans are now putting US democracy ahead of party loyalty and supporting Harris.

.So, the resurrection. I have already done that, too. It's just that I once assumed it was all the same story with a few differences. I wondered why Mark has nothing of that but seriously considered the Missing Ending apologetic. Now, it is clear it is intended to end with the women saying nothing, which of course contradicts them running to the disciples - all the women and Mary Magdalene, as Luke says, and never mind your attempt to rearrange the story to put the women running into Jesus after they has reported to the disciples and not before. Which isn't what John says anyway. Moreover, Luke has Mary Magdalene by herself, so Jesus can't appear to them all and they all 'worship' him though I'm sure you can invent some story about them following on behind, maybe by a different path that didn't exist.

I know how it works, of course. It must be True, and if it looks wrong, there must be some explanation. Think what it could be. Claim it as valid, which is ok as you know it is True on Faith anyway, and the evidence is secondary.

I wonder why i ever once thought it a real event that was misunderstood or misreported. Like i guess i once thought the Nativities were to same. even swallowed the ancient con of rolling them together. They are different and terminally contradictory stories about the same thing. And the nativities being fake is the clue that the resurrection accounts are Fake. And even up to now others had to point out to be that nobody but Luke has an ascension. Sure, I'd said that Luke reworked his Resurrection because he evidently saw Paul's letters. That's why he changed the angelic message, smuggled in an appearance to Simon and wrote Acts. But I'd sorta gone with 'the others didn't bother to write it'. We all make mistakes .