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]

....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 .

[SiNcE_1985]

.

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.

As Bible-believing Christian, I disagree with your thesis and argue the exact opposite; which is that the resurrection narratives are reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony, and as far as I'm concerned the events in question were reported about as accurate as any other historically verifiable account.

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.

I agree. We should expect consistency from the alleged eyewitness accounts if the accounts are to be viewed as historically reliable/accurate.

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.

Whoaa, slow down there.

On one hand, you state that ophthe, heoraka, and apokalupto does not necessarily imply the physical resurrection of a person...which means that it may/may not imply it.

So based on that statement alone (if it is true), it can go either way.

But before that, you (without any evidence) concluded that what Paul had seen was in fact visions/revelations of Jesus (according to him).

So first, you make the absolute statement that it is clear that what Paul claimed to have saw was visions, but you follow that by making the more modest insinuation of it can go either way.

Nevertheless, though, I do believe that what Paul saw was a vision, as it is clear in context he saw a light from heaven followed by the sound of a voice (Acts 9:3-4).

More can be said about that, though, even in verse 7, but I'll leave it there.

In closing on that note, scholarly opinions vary about what went on there with those Greek words^ and how they are best rendered in those contexts given.

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.

Which appearances? His or the other Apostles?

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.

I do not follow. Please clarify your point here.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

No location was mentioned because the author (Paul) may not have deemed it necessary/relevant to mention it.

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"?

Well, here is the thing; I love when skeptics/critics of the Bible point out stuff that isn't mentioned in the narratives, as you did above with the lack of locations mentioned.

I sincerely doubt that even if locations were mentioned, you'd be any closer to belief than you are now.

I also sincerely doubt that if we have narratives of Jesus' post-mortem appearances in Mark, that you'd be any closer to belief as well.

So, I said that to say this; it doesn't matter what the narratives state...whether vague or detailed accounts...you aren't going to believe regardless of how the story was written...so this is yet another classic example of "damned if they have it, damned if they don't".

If you aren't going to believe the accounts anyway, then what is/isn't said in the accounts is irrelevant, and the accounts simply say what they say, whether we like it or not.

Either you believe what is/was said, or you don't.

But I digress.

Mark may not provide the post-mortem accounts, but he provides an Resurrection account...and belief in Jesus' resurrection is what is the "most important part", and that was mentioned.

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. 

I am of the belief that all the Gospels were written prior to 70 AD.

And you already acknowledged that Paul's letters (at least 1 Corinth) predates the Gospels, so we do have evidence of a resurrection narrative at the time of Mark's Gospel.

And not only that, but we also have an early (before circa of the Gospels) Last Supper account as well (1 Corinth 11:17-34).

Matthew (80 CE) adds onto Mark's narrative

Please forgive Matthew for being more detailed than Mark...and while you are at it, please forgive Mark for being less detailed than Matthew.

I guess we don't live in a a world where some people are more detailed in their storytelling than others.

I guess the Gospels are the only books in the world that gets criticized in ways that no other books will ever be.

, 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!

But when you take both counts together, you will conclude that the women, based on shock and fright, didn't tell anyone at FIRST (Mark)...but eventually when they made their way towards the disciples, they did as they were instructed and told them (Matt).

Woww, what a concept; to be so scared to speak at first, but as time goes on and you regain your composure, you begin to speak.

It says they grabbed his feet which is not corroborated by any other account.

Yeah, so, if I am on a trip in New Orleans...I may visit a museum.

I may also take a trip down Bourbon street and enjoy the sights and nightlife

When I talk to my grandmother and she ask about my trip to New Orleans, I'll tell her I visited the museum and keep the Bourbon street narrative to myself.

But when I talk to my cousins and homies and they ask about my trip, I'll share with them the Bourbon street experience and keep the Bourbon street narrative to myself.

Yet, both accounts are true.

So, a lack of mention of the grabbing of Jesus' feet is irrelevant, is what I am trying to say.

It doesn't have to be mentioned, but that doesn't make the story as a whole any less true than if it was.

Next.

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!

Mark is allegedly the earliest Gospel, and we've already acknowledged that his Gospel doesn't have a post-portem appearance of Jesus.

So, what point you are trying to make here, I don't know.

Why would they doubt when they had already witnessed him the same night of the Resurrection according to Jn. 20:19?

Because, seeing isn't always necessarily BELIEVING...is it?

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!

Or, maybe John felt that if the other 3 Gospels had already touched on the issue, then there was no need to follow suit...instead, he may have rather had covered areas that they didn't.

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.

Yeah, and Scripture is clear that Jesus appeared his followers and a few unbelievers over the course of 40 days (Acts 1:3), undoubtedly at different locations and Luke only mentions specific Jerusalem appearances.

Not a big deal unless you are just reaching for something that isn't there.

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).

Yeah, and based on the fact that those two implied that there was an apparent prior appearance to Peter, I am lead to conclude that Peter was not present during the account of Luke 24:33-48.

And this is key, as I will articulate below.

Jesus suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas).

Not so fast. The text does not say who (of the Eleven), were present.

Yes, it says "the Eleven".

But that does not necessarily mean that all Eleven present at that specific time.

If I say, "The Detroit Lions visited my campus earlier today".

Do I mean every single player of the team? No.

Does every member of the team have to be present for the statement to be true? No.

The moniker or title "the Twelve" was used to describe Jesus' original twelve disciples, as a collective...but all members of the collective doesn't have to necessarily be present in order for the term to lose its value.

In this context, they were known as "the Eleven" (minus Judas).

But then again, in John 20:24, they are still called "The Twelve", despite Judas' absence.

So, if they could be still called "The Twelve" despite Judas' absence, then they could also be referred to as the "Eleven", even if others members were not present.
......

This is important to point out^, because I think what happened was; Jesus appeared to different groups (numbers-wise) of his followers at different times, but those titles "Eleven/Twelve" has people thinking that if it says Eleven or Twelve, then those are the numbers and specific people within the group that were present.

However, this is not necessarily the case and once this is realized, then those alleged contradictions go away.
.....

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

1. The other reports didn't mention X.
2. Therefore, X did not occur.

Does not logically follow.

and actually implies they *didn't* see Jesus.

Where is this implied?

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).

Not so fast.

According to my hypothesis, Jesus appeared to different groups of disciples at different times.

Bearing in mind that this was a stressful, chaotic three days and there may have been a lot of scattered pieces...some fleeing to one place and others elsewhere.

Jesus could have told one group to stay in Jerusalem, and the other to go to Galilee.

If this is even possible (and I see no reason why not), then as I said before, any alleged contradiction disappears.

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.

It is apparent that Peter's appearance was first, and then the Two, and then the eleven...the eleven of whom we specifically don't know which ones were present.

The failure to mention of the appearances to the women...I have my opinion on that, but it is irrelevant because just because the appearances weren't mentioned, that doesn't mean that the appearances did not occur.

However, if we had just Luke's account, then there wouldn't be a reason to believe that Jesus appeared to the women. But since we have more than one account, thus, we have reasons to believe that he did.

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.

You say that sarcastically...and my response is simple, when you are God (as Jesus is/was), you can do those kind of cool things.

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.

The fact that Jesus..

1. Lived.
2. Began a ministry.
3. Was arrested
4. Was placed on trial.
5. Was convicted
6. Was crucified.
7. Was buried.
8. Was resurrected.
9. Was seen by his followers (or would be seen by his followers, in Mark).

All Gospels agree on those 9, not to mention an even earlier corroboration with Paul.

What we have, at the very least, are different parts of the story told by different authors.

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.

The challenge has been met and refuted.

I agree, the story had developed, but not developed because of legend...but developed based on certain authors feeling the need to expand/expound on certain points that prior authors did not.

This is nothing new...it happens all the time.

"I went to the store, and purchased some cornmeal because I planned on frying some fish tonight".

"I went to the store, but on the way I observed a car accident. I hope everyone is ok. Anyway, I purchased some cornmeal because I plan on frying some catfish tonight".

See the difference? One account, direct, straight to the point (Mark).

The other account, a little more detailed (Matthew).

The first account; no mention of the car accident and what kind of fish.

The second account; car accident, and the kind of fish.

It happens all the time, but only when it comes to the Gospels is there this super-skeptic, super-critical level of scrutiny.

[otseng]

I sincerely doubt that even if locations were mentioned, you'd be any closer to belief than you are now.

I also sincerely doubt that if we have narratives of Jesus' post-mortem appearances in Mark, that you'd be any closer to belief as well.

So, I said that to say this; it doesn't matter what the narratives state...whether vague or detailed accounts...you aren't going to believe regardless of how the story was written...so this is yet another classic example of "damned if they have it, damned if they don't".

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[AchillesHeel]

As Bible-believing Christian, I disagree with your thesis and argue the exact opposite; which is that the resurrection narratives are reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony, and as far as I'm concerned the events in question were reported about as accurate as any other historically verifiable account.

Then why didn't you provide any analogous real world examples from history as the challenge at the end demands?

I agree. We should expect consistency from the alleged eyewitness accounts if the accounts are to be viewed as historically reliable/accurate.

If the story evolves from visions or vague experiences to an appearance in one specific location to touching a physically resurrected corpse before watching it float off to heaven in a totally different location, how is that "consistent"?

Whoaa, slow down there.

On one hand, you state that ophthe, heoraka, and apokalupto does not necessarily imply the physical resurrection of a person...which means that it may/may not imply it.

So based on that statement alone (if it is true), it can go either way.

But before that, you (without any evidence) concluded that what Paul had seen was in fact visions/revelations of Jesus (according to him).

So first, you make the absolute statement that it is clear that what Paul claimed to have saw was visions, but you follow that by making the more modest insinuation of it can go either way.

Nevertheless, though, I do believe that what Paul saw was a vision, as it is clear in context he saw a light from heaven followed by the sound of a voice (Acts 9:3-4).

More can be said about that, though, even in verse 7, but I'll leave it there.

In closing on that note, scholarly opinions vary about what went on there with those Greek words^ and how they are best rendered in those contexts given.

The point of mentioning the verbs not necessarily indicating the physical appearance of a person is that the resurrection argument requires that these be physical appearances. If the data is ambiguous in that regard then it is insufficient to establish what the resurrection argument requires in order to be convincing.

I'm making an internal critique based on what Christians already believe about the appearance to Paul which is explicitly called a "vision" in the New Testament and you're wrong that there is no evidence. Gal. 1:12-16 explicitly describes a revelation, Rom. 16:25-26 says Jesus was known through "revelation and the Scriptures", Eph. 3:3-6 says the mystery was made known through revelation and 2 Cor 12 explicitly describes a vision (although it's not necessarily the Resurrection appearance it's still evidence of how Jesus was said to be experienced post-resurrection).

Conclusion: Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than visions or revelations of Jesus. Therefore, according to the earliest and only source that is written from a firsthand perspective you are unjustified in thinking the Resurrection appearances were "physical." You cannot dispute this.

Which appearances? His or the other Apostles?

The ones listed in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

I do not follow. Please clarify your point here.

Paul would have had knowledge of the empty tomb, touching and eating with Jesus and watching him ascend to heaven, right? Peter and James would have told him these things during their visit. Well, then why doesn't Paul bring up any of that stuff as evidence for people who were denying the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and the "what type of body?" question in v. 35? Those details would have greatly helped his argument. So the absence of those details is more expected if the details were later legends that developed after Paul's time.

No location was mentioned because the author (Paul) may not have deemed it necessary/relevant to mention it.

You're ignoring the fact that the order of the appearances does not match any gospel narrative. This is inconsistent.

Mark may not provide the post-mortem accounts, but he provides an Resurrection account...and belief in Jesus' resurrection is what is the "most important part", and that was mentioned.

He's missing the appearance to the women immediately after they leave the tomb (Matthew). Instead, he says they "left and told no one" - Mk. 16:8 which was the original ending. This makes him a liar. He's also missing any description of the appearances at all, the witnessed ascension and the part where Peter is said to go check the tomb. This is inconsistent with the traditional view that Mark is supposed to be recording Peter's testimony. Again, the lack of this data is more easily explained if those details were later legends.

I am of the belief that all the Gospels were written prior to 70 AD.

That's nice but doesn't address the inconsistencies in the narratives or how they look like an evolving legend. I'm going by scholarly consensus dating. You can let them know they're wrong I guess.

And you already acknowledged that Paul's letters (at least 1 Corinth) predates the Gospels, so we do have evidence of a resurrection narrative at the time of Mark's Gospel.

Paul provides no narrative. He basically equates his vision with the other "appearances."

And not only that, but we also have an early (before circa of the Gospels) Last Supper account as well (1 Corinth 11:17-34).

Irrelevant to the Resurrection.

Please forgive Matthew for being more detailed than Mark...and while you are at it, please forgive Mark for being less detailed than Matthew.

I guess we don't live in a a world where some people are more detailed in their storytelling than others.

I guess the Gospels are the only books in the world that gets criticized in ways that no other books will ever be.

The accounts are supposed to be from people who all experienced the same events. Mark contradicts the other gospels. You cannot have the women "leave and tell no one" and at the same time "leave and tell the disciples."

But when you take both counts together, you will conclude that the women, based on shock and fright, didn't tell anyone at FIRST (Mark)...but eventually when they made their way towards the disciples, they did as they were instructed and told them (Matt).

Woww, what a concept; to be so scared to speak at first, but as time goes on and you regain your composure, you begin to speak.

The problem is neither account says that. You're just making it up. Mark uses a double negative οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν. Elsewhere Mark uses the conjunction εἰ μὴ "but/except" but not in this case - Mk. 2:26, 5:37, 6:4-5, 6:8, 9:8-9, 9:29, 10:18, 11:13, 13:32. So per Mark's own writing style, the ending is better understood as being an outright denial the women told anyone.

Yeah, so, if I am on a trip in New Orleans...I may visit a museum.

I may also take a trip down Bourbon street and enjoy the sights and nightlife

When I talk to my grandmother and she ask about my trip to New Orleans, I'll tell her I visited the museum and keep the Bourbon street narrative to myself.

But when I talk to my cousins and homies and they ask about my trip, I'll share with them the Bourbon street experience and keep the Bourbon street narrative to myself.

Yet, both accounts are true.

So, a lack of mention of the grabbing of Jesus' feet is irrelevant, is what I am trying to say.

It doesn't have to be mentioned, but that doesn't make the story as a whole any less true than if it was.

Next.

Again, you're ignoring the Markan contradiction and just appealing to possibility here. You're also ignoring the comparison of all of the narratives. How about finding an actual example from history that has the same degree of discrepancies like the challenge says?

Mark is allegedly the earliest Gospel, and we've already acknowledged that his Gospel doesn't have a post-portem appearance of Jesus.

So, what point you are trying to make here, I don't know.

The earliest narrative description says some disciples "doubted" it. That doesn't instill very much confidence in the veracity of the encounter does it?

Because, seeing isn't always necessarily BELIEVING...is it?

There is no indication in Jn. 20:19 that any of the disciples who were present disbelieved. It says they were "overjoyed" in v. 20. Only Thomas is said to disbelieve in the later story. This is completely inconsistent with disciples doubting a later appearance if they had already seen him. It makes more sense that the original tradition had Jesus appearing in Galilee as Mark and Matthew say and the later Jerusalem appearance was a secondary legend. If Jesus was to appear that same night in Jerusalem then it becomes very hard to explain why the angel originally instructs them to "go to Galilee" instead. Notice how Luke changes what the angels say in order to erase any mention of appearing in Galilee.

Or, maybe John felt that if the other 3 Gospels had already touched on the issue, then there was no need to follow suit...instead, he may have rather had covered areas that they didn't.

Appeals to possibility are fallacious and not convincing. Can you give an actual argument why this scenario is more probable than just being a later legend?

Yeah, and Scripture is clear that Jesus appeared his followers and a few unbelievers over the course of 40 days (Acts 1:3), undoubtedly at different locations and Luke only mentions specific Jerusalem appearances.

Not a big deal unless you are just reaching for something that isn't there.

No, the command to stay in the city of Jerusalem is given the same day of the Resurrection - Lk. 24:49 which excludes any chance to go to Galilee.

Yeah, and based on the fact that those two implied that there was an apparent prior appearance to Peter, I am lead to conclude that Peter was not present during the account of Luke 24:33-48.

And this is key, as I will articulate below.

Not so fast. The text does not say who (of the Eleven), were present.

Yes, it says "the Eleven".

But that does not necessarily mean that all Eleven present at that specific time.

Why would they use the moniker "the Eleven" to distinguish from "the Twelve" if it didn't literally mean 11 people? Why don't they use the phrase "some of the Eleven" witnessed these things or just cite the ones by name that did like in the Transfiguration and John 21 where only seven names are listed? Eleven means all Eleven unless there is a qualifier of some sort.

If I say, "The Detroit Lions visited my campus earlier today".

Do I mean every single player of the team? No.

Does every member of the team have to be present for the statement to be true? No.

This is not analogous to the "Eleven" which is an explicit reference to an actual number.

The moniker or title "the Twelve" was used to describe Jesus' original twelve disciples, as a collective...but all members of the collective doesn't have to necessarily be present in order for the term to lose its value.

In this context, they were known as "the Eleven" (minus Judas).

But then again, in John 20:24, they are still called "The Twelve", despite Judas' absence.

So, if they could be still called "The Twelve" despite Judas' absence, then they could also be referred to as the "Eleven", even if others members were not present.

The problem is that Luke says Jesus appeared to the Eleven while John 20:24 is just referring to Thomas being one member of the Twelve. John 20 doesn't ever say Jesus "appeared to the Twelve" while Judas wasn't there.

This is important to point out^, because I think what happened was; Jesus appeared to different groups (numbers-wise) of his followers at different times, but those titles "Eleven/Twelve" has people thinking that if it says Eleven or Twelve, then those are the numbers and specific people within the group that were present.

However, this is not necessarily the case and once this is realized, then those alleged contradictions go away.

There is no example in the New Testament where Twelve doesn't mean 12 and Eleven doesn't mean 11.

1. The other reports didn't mention X.
2. Therefore, X did not occur.

Does not logically follow.

Nice strawman you have there. Let's mirror the argument for what you're asking us to believe.

1. The other reports didn't mention X.
2. Therefore, X did occur.

How does that logically follow?

Where is this implied?

Luke 24:24 implies that no one, including the women, hadn't seen Jesus yet.

Luke 24:22-24
In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

All Luke tells us is that they found the tomb empty and saw a vision of angels. Surely, if the women had seen Jesus they would have reported that here:

Luke 24:9-10
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

Evidently, "all these things" didn't include the appearance to any women even though John's version says this:

John 20:18
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Not so fast.

According to my hypothesis, Jesus appeared to different groups of disciples at different times.

Bearing in mind that this was a stressful, chaotic three days and there may have been a lot of scattered pieces...some fleeing to one place and others elsewhere.

Jesus could have told one group to stay in Jerusalem, and the other to go to Galilee.

If this is even possible (and I see no reason why not), then as I said before, any alleged contradiction disappears.

You're just making up your own version of events which no account actually says happened though....

I don't care if you can reconcile the contradictions. The point is that the testimony is so inconsistent with what we'd expect from reliable accounts from people who all witnessed the same thing. It's much easier to explain under the legendary growth hypothesis. The way we can test this is by seeing which hypothesis has to make up the most ad hoc excuses. The legendary growth hypothesis has no need of excuses while claiming this is actually what occurred requires you to create your own version of events!

It is apparent that Peter's appearance was first, and then the Two, and then the eleven...the eleven of whom we specifically don't know which ones were present.

The failure to mention of the appearances to the women...I have my opinion on that, but it is irrelevant because just because the appearances weren't mentioned, that doesn't mean that the appearances did not occur.

However, if we had just Luke's account, then there wouldn't be a reason to believe that Jesus appeared to the women. But since we have more than one account, thus, we have reasons to believe that he did.

Right. You are basically admitting you're letting other authors speak for Luke rather than himself.

You say that sarcastically...and my response is simple, when you are God (as Jesus is/was), you can do those kind of cool things.

And my response is simple as well - people can just make up these sorts of things....

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.

The fact that Jesus..

1. Lived.
2. Began a ministry.
3. Was arrested
4. Was placed on trial.
5. Was convicted
6. Was crucified.
7. Was buried.
8. Was resurrected.
9. Was seen by his followers (or would be seen by his followers, in Mark).

All Gospels agree on those 9, not to mention an even earlier corroboration with Paul.

What we have, at the very least, are different parts of the story told by different authors.

Only #9 is relevant here but each account tells an entirely different story so how are we supposed to actually piece together what took place? Remember, the earliest account is ambiguous in regards to what type of "seeing" was meant. This is the most reliable report because it can be traced to an actual person who claimed to be an "eyewitness" himself. The gospels cannot be afforded such a luxury. They are internally anonymous accounts written in third person and critical scholars doubt their traditional attribution.

The challenge has been met and refuted.

No it has not.

I agree, the story had developed, but not developed because of legend...but developed based on certain authors feeling the need to expand/expound on certain points that prior authors did not.

This is nothing new...it happens all the time.

"I went to the store, and purchased some cornmeal because I planned on frying some fish tonight".

"I went to the store, but on the way I observed a car accident. I hope everyone is ok. Anyway, I purchased some cornmeal because I plan on frying some catfish tonight".

See the difference? One account, direct, straight to the point (Mark).

The other account, a little more detailed (Matthew).

The first account; no mention of the car accident and what kind of fish.

The second account; car accident, and the kind of fish.

It happens all the time, but only when it comes to the Gospels is there this super-skeptic, super-critical level of scrutiny.

You're just making this up though. I asked for a real world example from history where this type of "development" takes place. Please find one example where the accounts "developed based on certain authors feeling the need to expand/expound on certain points that prior authors did not" to the same degree as the gospel Resurrection narratives do.

[SiNcE_1985]

Then why didn't you provide any analogous real world examples from history as the challenge at the end demands?

Don't need to.

I said the events recorded in the resurrection narratives are about as accurate as any historically reliable account.

Keyword: Any.

What is left out of "any"?

Nothing.

So, I don't need to give specifics, I'm talking about ALL.

You can do the picking.

If the story evolves from visions or vague experiences to an appearance in one specific location to touching a physically resurrected corpse before watching it float off to heaven in a totally different location, how is that "consistent"?

First off, you are assuming the story "evolved", which is something you've yet to demonstrate and is question begging.

Just because one author expanded on the narratives doesn't make any of the narratives less true.

Respectfully, I don't know what part of that you don't understand.

The point of mentioning the verbs not necessarily indicating the physical appearance of a person is that the resurrection argument requires that these be physical appearances. If the data is ambiguous in that regard then it is insufficient to establish what the resurrection argument requires in order to be convincing.

What it requires, is what we have.

We (believers) have all we need to be convinced...we don't need unbelievers providing their two cents on what it requires to be convincing to us.

I'm making an internal critique based on what Christians already believe about the appearance to Paul which is explicitly called a "vision" in the New Testament

Where?

and you're wrong that there is no evidence. Gal. 1:12-16 explicitly describes a revelation, Rom. 16:25-26 says Jesus was known through "revelation and the Scriptures", Eph. 3:3-6 says the mystery was made known through revelation and 2 Cor 12 explicitly describes a vision (although it's not necessarily the Resurrection appearance it's still evidence of how Jesus was said to be experienced post-resurrection).

A vision or revelation from Jesus, still confirms that Jesus lives...and Paul certainly believed in Jesus' resurrection, because that is what he preached (1 Corin 15:20).

Conclusion: Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than visions or revelations of Jesus. Therefore, according to the earliest and only source that is written from a firsthand perspective you are unjustified in thinking the Resurrection appearances were "physical." You cannot dispute this.

Yes I can dispute this, because I'm not basing whether or not the appearances were physical/visions off one scripture...rather, I base it off a plethora of other supporting scriptures throughout the Gospels.

If you take 1 Corin 15:3-7 alone, then sure, you can debate whether the appearances were physical or visions.

But not when you take into account the Gospel narratives.

Paul would have had knowledge of the empty tomb, touching and eating with Jesus and watching him ascend to heaven, right? Peter and James would have told him these things during their visit. Well, then why doesn't Paul bring up any of that stuff as evidence for people who were denying the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and the "what type of body?" question in v. 35?

Um, you are asking me to get in the mind of someone, and answer the question of why he wrote X the way he did...and obviously I cannot do that.

Sure, we can theorize all day long, but the man said what he said, he wrote what he wrote.

Either you believe it, or you don't.

Those details would have greatly helped his argument. So the absence of those details is more expected if the details were later legends that developed after Paul's time.

What he has written, he has written (John 19:22).

You're ignoring the fact that the order of the appearances does not match any gospel narrative. This is inconsistent.

No one promised that the order of appearances had to in chronological order.

There was an appearance to Cleopas and another brother, which wasn't mentioned in any other Gospel nor in Paul's breakdown order...and none of the Gospels mentioned the appearance to the 500 that Paul mentioned.

So what?

All could be true...because what is consistent throughout all accounts is that Jesus appeared to some of his followers after his resurrection.

No account denies that much.

He's missing the appearance to the women immediately after they leave the tomb (Matthew). Instead, he says they "left and told no one" - Mk. 16:8 which was the original ending. This makes him a liar. He's also missing any description of the appearances at all, the witnessed ascension and the part where Peter is said to go check the tomb. This is inconsistent with the traditional view that Mark is supposed to be recording Peter's testimony. Again, the lack of this data is more easily explained if those details were later legends.

Astonishing.

People living 2,000 years later and typing posts on message forums, think that they know more about which sources were credible and which ones werent...they think they know more than those living during the actual times in question.

Apparently, the authors of Matt and Luke felt that Mark was credible enough to use as a source, and if they did, who cares what people living 2,000 years later thinks.

That's nice but doesn't address the inconsistencies in the narratives or how they look like an evolving legend.

Again...Jesus lived, had a ministry, ruffled some feathers, was arrested, convicted, crucified, resurrected, and appeared to many.

All accounts are consistent with those facts.

I'm going by scholarly consensus dating. You can let them know they're wrong I guess.

I won't tell them why they're wrong; but I will tell them why I'm right.

Paul provides no narrative. He basically equates his vision with the other "appearances."

And those other "appearances" that he equates his "vision" with, presupposes an actual Resurrection narrative, doesn't it?

The admission one thing is an admission of another.

Irrelevant to the Resurrection.

It is an early (earlier than the Gospels) prelude to the Resurrection, which supplements a later prelude to the Resurrection in the actual Gospel narratives.

It is rich, off-the-cuff, supplementary evidence of the narratives, all the way down to what Jesus spoke.

Those off-the-cuff details are what historians love.

The accounts are supposed to be from people who all experienced the same events. Mark contradicts the other gospels. You cannot have the women "leave and tell no one" and at the same time "leave and tell the disciples."

Not so fast here.

You're the one claiming that one contradicts the other...all I have to do is provide a logical explanation as to how one account can say one thing, and another says another and yet both could be equally true.

And I've achieved such....as long as my explanation is possible (which it is), then it doesn't contradict, which is what you are charging it of.

The problem is neither account says that.

One account says they didn't tell anyone. The other account says they told others.

You: Contradiction.

Me: They didn't tell anyone at first, but later they did.

Let readers of the narratives form their own opinions, based on what they find reasonable to believe.

You're just making it up. Mark uses a double negative οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν. Elsewhere Mark uses the conjunction εἰ μὴ "but/except" but not in this case - Mk. 2:26, 5:37, 6:4-5, 6:8, 9:8-9, 9:29, 10:18, 11:13, 13:32. So per Mark's own writing style, the ending is better understood as being an outright denial the women told anyone.

First of all, I find it hilarious that you are telling me about times where Mark uses the conjunction "but/expect", and comparing it to his lack of its use in this case.

Why is this hilarious?

Because we are discussing literally the last sentence of Mark's original (earliest source).

Mark didn't use the conjunction, because that is where the story ENDED. We don't know what else is next or whether there would have been later change the women's actions.

Yes, hilarious.
.......

Second, the women may have had good reasons to be afraid of telling people what they saw...obviously, Jesus' body was missing from the tomb, and there were people around Jerusalem and throughout the region that were unfriendly towards Christ and what he was about.

The women may have not wanted to put themselves in harms way by blabbering to people in route to Galilee regarding the tomb's empty status and thus possibly getting caught up in any presumed conspiracies which would have gotten them arrested or worse.

So, they were afraid, as the text says, from which they said nothing to no one, at first

But when they made it to Galilee and around friendly and familiar faces, that is when they did what they were told by telling the brothers.

Now, if that explanation ain't good enough for you..I can't help you.

Continue in your unbelief, not that this (or any) explanation provided would ever be good enough anyway.

Again, you're ignoring the Markan contradiction and just appealing to possibility here. You're also ignoring the comparison of all of the narratives. How about finding an actual example from history that has the same degree of discrepancies like the challenge says?

Again, true contradictions cannot be reconciled. The explanations that I provided aren't far-fetched and could possibly be true, and that is all that is required to offer as a defeater of your charge of contradiction.

There is no indication in Jn. 20:19 that any of the disciples who were present disbelieved. It says they were "overjoyed" in v. 20. Only Thomas is said to disbelieve in the later story. This is completely inconsistent with disciples doubting a later appearance if they had already seen him.

I do not understand the point being made here.

It makes more sense that the original tradition had Jesus appearing in Galilee as Mark and Matthew say and the later Jerusalem appearance was a secondary legend. If Jesus was to appear that same night in Jerusalem then it becomes very hard to explain why the angel originally instructs them to "go to Galilee" instead. Notice how Luke changes what the angels say in order to erase any mention of appearing in Galilee.

I will repeat; my theory is that there were two groups of disciples in two locations.

One Group: In Jerusalem

Other Group: In Galilee

Jesus had planned to appear to each group at different times, and also together at the same time.

There is no inconsistency when this theory is considered.

Appeals to possibility are fallacious and not convincing.

So, let me get this straight...I can't appeal to the mere possibility of my theory..

But yet you can appeal to this "later legend" theory, which is itself just a mere possibility, and one of which I do not find convincing even in the slightest bit?

Can you give an actual argument why this scenario is more probable than just being a later legend?

My arguments are what I already said.

No, the command to stay in the city of Jerusalem is given the same day of the Resurrection - Lk. 24:49 which excludes any chance to go to Galilee.

Again, he told that to one group of disciples, which says nothing about the other group.

Why would they use the moniker "the Eleven" to distinguish from "the Twelve" if it didn't literally mean 11 people? Why don't they use the phrase "some of the Eleven" witnessed these things or just cite the ones by name that did like in the Transfiguration and John 21 where only seven names are listed? Eleven means all Eleven unless there is a qualifier of some sort.

Even if a team is short-handed from the official quantity of their roster...even short-handed, when you play this team, you are still playing the "team", whether they are short-handed or not.

If you can understand that, you should be able to understand how The Eleven (or Twelve) may or may not have every official member of the group present at any given time and still be considered "The Twelve/Eleven".

To not accept this explanation as a possibility is to commit the taxi cab fallacy...as I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem accepting this reasoning when it comes to any other thing, but only when it comes to the Bible is it time to be super-skeptical and not allow for even the slightest bit of chasity.

This is not analogous to the "Eleven" which is an explicit reference to an actual number.

We'll just have to disagree here.

The problem is that Luke says Jesus appeared to the Eleven while John 20:24 is just referring to Thomas being one member of the Twelve. John 20 doesn't ever say Jesus "appeared to the Twelve" while Judas wasn't there.

Yeah, but the point is; John still refers to the group as the Twelve, despite missing one member (Judas).

Even if you count Thomas, whether present or not at that particular time/location, there would still only be 11 apostles (technically speaking) minus Judas.

So obviously, this makes my point that every member did not have to be present in order for whatever group present to be refered to as "The Twelve".

This really blows your entire argument out of the water and adds credence to my theory of only a select members of the "Twelve/Eleven" were present at certain times during certain appearances of Jesus, regardless of whether the text says "Twelve/Eleven" or not.

There is no example in the New Testament where Twelve doesn't mean 12 and Eleven doesn't mean 11.

Unless the narratives drops (provides) the names at any given time the Twelve is mentioned, we don't necessarily know that to be the case.

That, followed by the fact that what you are saying just ain't true, because that IS the case in John 20:24.

Judas was already gone during this occasion and the disciples are still referred to as The Twelve.

Nice strawman you have there. Let's mirror the argument for what you're asking us to believe.

1. The other reports didn't mention X.
2. Therefore, X did occur.

How does that logically follow?

Not so fast....your allegation is false because this is one of the few times that I am not giving what I know to be facts...I am giving my theory/opinion.

My opinion could be wrong, but it also could be right.

That is why it all comes down to either you believe it, or you don't.

Luke 24:24 implies that no one, including the women, hadn't seen Jesus yet.

Luke 24:22-24
In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

All Luke tells us is that they found the tomb empty and saw a vision of angels. Surely, if the women had seen Jesus they would have reported that here:

Luke 24:9-10
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

Evidently, "all these things" didn't include the appearance to any women even though John's version says this:

Yeah, this was a toughy, but then as I read it, something stood out to me...however, this might be too much for you to accept, but it is what it is.

Luke 24:24

"Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the woman had said, but they did not see Jesus".

Now, here is the thing...

If the women provided the disciples with ONLY the report of an empty tomb (with no appearance of Jesus), then it wouldn't have been necessary for Cleopas to add on "but they (Peter/John) did not see Jesus."

If the companions found the tomb just as the women had said (empty), then it would logically follow that the companions wouldn't have saw Jesus, because the tomb was empty...so for Cleopas to say "but they did not see Jesus" is not something he would need to say....UNLESS, Cleopas is drawing a parallel from the companions NOT seeing Jesus, to the women who actually SAW Jesus.

Here is the short version..

Women (to the disciples): We discovered the tomb empty of Jesus' body inside, but when we stepped outside, we saw Jesus, alive and well!!

Cleopas to Jesus: Some of our companions went to the tomb and discovered it empty of Jesus' body inside, just as the women said. But unlike the women, our companions did not see Jesus outside.

Now this is where you say, "But Luke doesn't narrate that Jesus making an appearance to the women", and you will be correct in saying this.

However, I can think of at least one reason why he didn't mention it, but we need not get into that here....and now that I really think about it, it does appear that Cleopas purposely left Jesus' appearance to the women out of the narrative.

You're just making up your own version of events which no account actually says happened though....

I am tasked with offering a logical explanation to some alleged contradiction and inconsistencies, which I believe I've accomplished.

Nothing is far fetched, and everything is within the the narratives of the stories.

Either you believe it or you don't.

I don't care if you can reconcile the contradictions.

Don't go through the trouble of pointing them out then.

The point is that the testimony is so inconsistent with what we'd expect from reliable accounts from people who all witnessed the same thing. It's much easier to explain under the legendary growth hypothesis.

Opinions.

The way we can test this is by seeing which hypothesis has to make up the most ad hoc excuses. The legendary growth hypothesis has no need of excuses while claiming this is actually what occurred requires you to create your own version of events!

Um, no.

Ask any police detective who've conducted interviews/interrogations....everything isn't as black and white as we'd like it to be...multiple things can be true at the same time and all it requires is a critically thinking brain.

Right. You are basically admitting you're letting other authors speak for Luke rather than himself.

I wasn't aware that I was doing that, but ok.

Only #9 is relevant here but each account tells an entirely different story so how are we supposed to actually piece together what took place? Remember, the earliest account is ambiguous in regards to what type of "seeing" was meant.

Well again, you keep saying "earliest account" as if there was a large gap in between Paul's writings and the Gospels.

All of the Gospels and Paul's writing can be dated between the 50's CE and 67 CE.

Not much time for legend to arise...and we know what "seeing" is meant by the Gospels, leaving it plain and clear what kind of appearances Jesus' followers experienced.

This is the most reliable report because it can be traced to an actual person who claimed to be an "eyewitness" himself. The gospels cannot be afforded such a luxury. They are internally anonymous accounts written in third person and critical scholars doubt their traditional attribution.

Again, simply put; if the Gospels were written in first person, with no question of who the authors are, I sincerely doubt that skeptics/unbelievers will be any close to believing than they are now.

So, that being said, it simply doesn't matter how the books were written, or who wrote them....so at the end of the day, as I keep saying; you either believe it, or you don't.

The books say what they say....either you believe it, or you don't.

No it has not.

I don't expect you to think any thing less.

You're just making this up though. I asked for a real world example from history where this type of "development" takes place. Please find one example where the accounts "developed based on certain authors feeling the need to expand/expound on certain points that prior authors did not" to the same degree as the gospel Resurrection narratives do.

I can obviously do that...but it depends on what you mean by "degree".

And even that is irrelevant, it doesn't matter the degree, all that matters is the TRUTH VALUE.

As long as the narratives are true, that is all that is required for the narratives to have credence.

[AchillesHeel]

I'm not going to bother responding to all that as it's a complete waste of time. I'll only summarize the main point of contention here.

Don't need to.

You absolutely need to as that was the entire point of the challenge!

I said the events recorded in the resurrection narratives are about as accurate as any historically reliable account.

Keyword: Any.

What is left out of "any"?

Nothing.

So, I don't need to give specifics, I'm talking about ALL.

Interesting how you can't give any examples from history that are analogous in regards to "accuracy" or "historically reliable." In order to label something "accurate" or "historically reliable" you have to have an example of something accurate or historically reliable to compare to! So I think the fact you're dodging the challenge shows you're just special pleading.

First off, you are assuming the story "evolved", which is something you've yet to demonstrate and is question begging.

Are we reading the same stories? Does Paul mention the empty tomb, people touching and eating with Jesus or a witnessed Ascension? Does Mark mention touching and eating with the Resurrected Jesus, appearances in Jerusalem or a witnessed Ascension?

No.

The story certainly has the appearance of evolution because all that stuff is in the latest two accounts.

What exactly do you think a legend evolving looks like?

It seems entirely reasonable to think that if a story starts out simple with more fantastic accretions over time then that is at least consistent with an evolving legend, right?

Just because one author expanded on the narratives doesn't make any of the narratives less true.

If you apply this rule consistently then you'd never be justified in concluding anything was an actual evolving legend which is absurd because of course there are legends that have evolved!

Where?

Acts 26:19 has Paul explicitly call his experience a vision. So do you have another source where Paul's experience is called something else?

A vision or revelation from Jesus, still confirms that Jesus lives...and Paul certainly believed in Jesus' resurrection, because that is what he preached (1 Corin 15:20).

Hindus have visions of their gods too. Does that mean Hindu gods are real? Joseph Smith had a vision. Does that make Mormonism true?

Do you really believe claims of visions are a reliable means of testimony?

Yes I can dispute this, because I'm not basing whether or not the appearances were physical/visions off one scripture...rather, I base it off a plethora of other supporting scriptures throughout the Gospels.

If you take 1 Corin 15:3-7 alone, then sure, you can debate whether the appearances were physical or visions.

But not when you take into account the Gospel narratives.

Boom! You just conceded my point. The earliest and most reliable source is ambiguous (when taken alone) so you have to read the later developed gospel stories (which look like legends) into the text. This is begging the question against the legendary growth hypothesis.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm not going to bother responding to all that as it's a complete waste of time.

I said what I said, whether you respond to it or not.

You absolutely need to as that was the entire point of the challenge!

The challenge was met and conquered.

Interesting how you can't give any examples from history that are analogous in regards to "accuracy" or "historically reliable." In order to label something "accurate" or "historically reliable" you have to have an example of something accurate or historically reliable to compare to! So I think the fact you're dodging the challenge shows you're just special pleading.

I said any. Take your pick.

Are we reading the same stories? Does Paul mention the empty tomb, people touching and eating with Jesus or a witnessed Ascension?

If he did, would you believe it? Probably not.

He said what he said.

Either you believe it or you don't.

Does Mark mention touching and eating with the Resurrected Jesus, appearances in Jerusalem or a witnessed Ascension?

No.

If he did, would you believe it?

Probably not.

The author wrote what he wrote.

Either you believe it, or you don't.

The story certainly has the appearance of evolution

Opinions.

because all that stuff is in the latest two accounts.

1. Earliest sources don't have X information.

2. Therefore, X information is based on later legend.

Non sequitur.

What exactly do you think a legend evolving looks like?

As I stated before, there isn't enough time from Paul's writings to the Gospels for legend stuff to develope.

That's why your legend theory is bogus.

It seems entirely reasonable to think that if a story starts out simple with more fantastic accretions over time then that is at least consistent with an evolving legend, right?

Um, no.

Mark's account (earliest source) has..

1. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.
2. Jesus' death and resurrection.
3. A presumed resurrection appearance.

Matt, Luke, and John's account has..

1. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.
2. Jesus' death and resurrection.
3. Jesus' actual resurrection appearances.

All four books have literally the same pieces of information within them, with 3 of the 4 providing the actual narratives of Jesus' appearances, which were already presumed in Mark.

So, the legend charge is bogus.

If you apply this rule consistently then you'd never be justified in concluding anything was an actual evolving legend which is absurd because of course there are legends that have evolved!

Sure you would, if later accounts began to circulate decades and even centuries after the earliest accounts, then you'd be able to cry out legend.

But that's not what we have with the Gospels and Paul's writings.

And that is precisely why those non-canonical books (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Peter) were rejected, because they were written so much later after the fact, that they could hardly be considered reliable and also contained nonsense in them that were against the actual within the-lifetime-of-the -apostles, Gospels.

Acts 26:19 has Paul explicitly call his experience a vision. So do you have another source where Paul's experience is called something else?

Yeah, he said vision, and if 1Corinth 15:7 is talking about the same encounter as Acts 26:19, then it was a vision.

Hindus have visions of their gods too. Does that mean Hindu gods are real? Joseph Smith had a vision. Does that make Mormonism true?

Are empty tombs and group appearances apart of those vision narratives?

No.

Do you really believe claims of visions are a reliable means of testimony?

Group appearances of visions, yes, I view it as reliable means of testimony.

Boom! You just conceded my point. The earliest and most reliable source is ambiguous (when taken alone) so you have to read the later developed gospel stories (which look like legends) into the text. This is begging the question against the legendary growth hypothesis.

Not so fast.

For the third time, you keep mentioning "later" developments when all accounts were written within a decade of each other, and even before that you had the apostles and disciples of Christ spread out and dispelling false teachings, as they did with the Council of Jerusalem.

So again, there was just no time for legends to develop..and because of these zealous efforts by early followers of Christ, the narratives remained consistent from then until now.

Second, visions don't explain the empty tomb, that all Gospel accounts confirms.

You said before that Paul did not mention the empty tomb, but the fact that he mentioned that Jesus was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4) presupposes an empty tomb.

Because if Jesus wasn't raised, the tomb wouldn't have been empty, would it?

[AchillesHeel]

The challenge was met and conquered.

No, the challenge was for you to provide other historically reliable accounts that evolve like the gospels do. You didn't do that so you're not being honest in saying the challenge was met.

Earlier, your wrote this:

I agree, the story had developed, but not developed because of legend...but developed based on certain authors feeling the need to expand/expound on certain points that prior authors did not.

Here is an admission on your part that the story looks developed. So presumably you have other examples of the same type of evolution we see in the gospels happening in historical literature where other authors "felt the need to expound on certain points that prior authors did not." A more accurate way of describing the gospels would be that each account tells an entirely different story with a different order and type of appearances but I can see if you describe them as they actually are then it doesn't make your position look very strong.

You've not given any reason to think the development is because of what you say it is. So would you actually like to try to provide evidence for your position instead of just asserting it?

I said any. Take your pick.

Do eyewitness accounts of The Hindenburg Disaster, the sinking of the Titanic, the Battle of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln's assassination tell entirely different stories of what took place?

I know of no historically reliable accounts from people who all witnessed the same events to have the same degree of discrepancy that the gospel resurrection narratives do. That's why it's your job to find one. I've already done the work of providing a comparative analysis of all the Resurrection narratives showing how the accounts are not consistent with one another in regards to who saw what or where. This is simply unexpected from a reliable set of eyewitness testimony. Now you need to do the work of finding something analogous. That was the challenge.

If he did, would you believe it? Probably not.

He said what he said.

Either you believe it or you don't.

Not so fast. In the above quote you already admitted the story looks "developed." Yet, in the post after that you said this:

First off, you are assuming the story "evolved", which is something you've yet to demonstrate and is question begging.

Sorry, but you don't get to go back on this now. We both are in agreement that the story looks like it evolved. We just disagree on the reason it does. So I'm sorry but using the red herring of "would you believe it if the story didn't look like it evolved?" is not a tactic that is going to work here. You need to show your reason is more probable and you've not done that.

Opinions.

You're already backed into a corner here since your "opinion" agrees with mine that the story appears "developed."

1. Earliest sources don't have X information.

2. Therefore, X information is based on later legend.

Non sequitur.

That's hardly a fair characterization of the evidence and argument as presented in the OP. You'll notice that the latest stories in Luke and John appear apologetically motivated, thus providing a plausible explanation for invention. A more accurate argument would be this:

1. Reliable eyewitness testimony does not look like a legend evolving.
2. The gospel resurrection narratives look like a legend evolving.
3. Therefore, the gospel resurrection narratives are not reliable eyewitness testimony.

As I stated before, there isn't enough time from Paul's writings to the Gospels for legend stuff to develope.

That's why your legend theory is bogus.

We have a fundamental disagreement here on the dates of the documents which I provide in my OP comparison. According to most experts they all date after 70. If you believe Irenaeus is reliable, he said Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul which took place in the mid 60s. Since Mark is the first gospel and Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark then that means they're later.

But this is all a red herring. If the gospels all date before 70 that does nothing to refute the inconsistencies between the accounts. In fact, that makes it even harder to explain why each account tells an entirely different story!

Um, no.

Um, yes. What does an evolving legend in any other context look like? What would we expect to see?

Mark's account (earliest source) has..

1. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.
2. Jesus' death and resurrection.
3. A presumed resurrection appearance.

"A presumed resurrection appearance" does not mean a narrative of that appearance was written yet.

Matt, Luke, and John's account has..

1. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.
2. Jesus' death and resurrection.
3. Jesus' actual resurrection appearances.

But they all tell entirely different stories of what took place! Only Luke and John's account of the initial appearance in Jerusalem is consistent. The rest is not!

All four books have literally the same pieces of information within them, with 3 of the 4 providing the actual narratives of Jesus' appearances, which were already presumed in Mark.

How can you honestly say that they contain the "same pieces of information"? That is not true. They're only the same if you ignore all the details that are different! Notice how your summary conspicuously leaves out the details of what each account actually says took place - lol! And you're begging the question by assuming Mark thought of the appearances in the same way as the later authors. You haven't presented any evidence for that.

Sure you would, if later accounts began to circulate decades and even centuries after the earliest accounts, then you'd be able to cry out legend.

That's exactly when scholars think the gospels were composed! It goes like this:

Paul - 50s
Mark - around 70
Matthew - 80
Luke - 85 or later
John - 90-110 or later

You can look this up yourself!

But that's not what we have with the Gospels and Paul's writings.

Would you like to provide evidence for your extremely early fringe dating theory?

And that is precisely why those non-canonical books (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Peter) were rejected, because they were written so much later after the fact, that they could hardly be considered reliable and also contained nonsense in them that were against the actual within the-lifetime-of-the -apostles, Gospels.

Again, see Irenaeus on when Mark was written. If what he says was true then Mark was written after Peter and Paul were already dead.

Yeah, he said vision, and if 1Corinth 15:7 is talking about the same encounter as Acts 26:19, then it was a vision.

Ok and notice how Paul makes no distinction but uses the same verb when he places his vision in the list of other "appearances."

"Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to them and appeared (ὤφθη) to me last."

The same verb implies the same type of appearances.

Are empty tombs and group appearances apart of those vision narratives?

Empty tomb and "missing body" stories were a literary theme in fictional literature of the time period.
viewtopic.php?p=1067640#p1067640

"Group appearances" are a non-starter if they believed he was appearing to them from heaven. Do you believe the Virgin Mary sightings were really of her? She supposedly appeared to thousands.

Group appearances of visions, yes, I view it as reliable means of testimony.

The problem is you don't have any first person account of any of those involved in the "group appearance" explaining what they or the others saw. You only have a narrative written in third person which is equally likely expected from a fictional account.

You said before that Paul did not mention the empty tomb, but the fact that he mentioned that Jesus was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4) presupposes an empty tomb.

An empty tomb doesn't mean anyone really saw a resurrected figure or that a resurrection actually took place. A resurrection could only be verified by actually seeing a formerly dead person alive again. Paul may have implied an empty grave of some sort but that's not the same thing as corroborating a burial by Joseph or any women discovering a tomb empty. Paul gives absolutely no corroboration for the gospel account.

[SiNcE_1985]

No, the challenge was for you to provide other historically reliable accounts that evolve like the gospels do. You didn't do that so you're not being honest in saying the challenge was met.

Oh, I've said in my prior post that the challenge is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if the story evolved (in the way you posit), just as long as the story is true.

And I stand by that.

Here is an admission on your part that the story looks developed. So presumably you have other examples of the same type of evolution we see in the gospels happening in historical literature where other authors "felt the need to expound on certain points that prior authors did not."

If the author of Luke viewed Mark as credible, but yet noticed Mark lacked Jesus' resurrection appearances in his narrative, then being the thorough person he was and being privy to this lacking information, he deemed it necessary to include those appearances.

That is just good journalistic, investigative reporting and has nothing to do with a developing legend, but much to do with adding particulars that were previously lacking.

The fact that you find this explanation so far-fetched, is disgusting.

A more accurate way of describing the gospels would be that each account tells an entirely different story with a different order and type of appearances

You and I have opposing views of what "entirely different" means, apparently.

You've not given any reason to think the development is because of what you say it is.

Opinions.

So would you actually like to try to provide evidence for your position instead of just asserting it?

I said what I said.

Do eyewitness accounts of The Hindenburg Disaster, the sinking of the Titanic, the Battle of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln's assassination tell entirely different stories of what took place?

I don't know, but I'm sure if I have nothing else to do with my spare time and I begin to dig deep enough, I'll find some sort of inconsistencies here and there.

I know of no historically reliable accounts from people who all witnessed the same events to have the same degree of discrepancy that the gospel resurrection narratives do.

Well again, you are begging the question, as you are claiming discrepancies when you've yet to prove them as such.

That's why it's your job to find one. I've already done the work of providing a comparative analysis of all the Resurrection narratives showing how the accounts are not consistent with one another in regards to who saw what or where.

Ok, that is your opinion based on your analysis.

I've also done a comparative analysis, and I've come to a different conclusion..and I say that while understanding and acknowledging your points...as you raise valid concerns, of which needs to be addressed.

However, once a comprehensive examination is done, those proposed inconsistencies goes away...at least according to what I see.

Now of course, you believe otherwise, and that's why you remain a skeptic and I remain a believer.

This is simply unexpected from a reliable set of eyewitness testimony. Now you need to do the work of finding something analogous. That was the challenge.

The challenge is irrelevant for previously given reasons.

Not so fast. In the above quote you already admitted the story looks "developed." Yet, in the post after that you said this:

First off, you are assuming the story "evolved", which is something you've yet to demonstrate and is question begging.

Sorry, but you don't get to go back on this now. We both are in agreement that the story looks like it evolved. We just disagree on the reason it does.

Um, first of all, you are equivocating the word "evolve", by changing the context of how I meant it and conflating it with how you mean it.

You've just acknowledged that we agree it evolved, we just disagree as to how, so why do you feel the need to present it as if I meant it your way, I don't know.

So I'm sorry but using the red herring of "would you believe it if the story didn't look like it evolved?" is not a tactic that is going to work here. You need to show your reason is more probable and you've not done that.

If the stories are damned if they are, and damned if they aren't, then that makes the entire debate irrelevant.

Of course, in my opinion.

That's hardly a fair characterization of the evidence and argument as presented in the OP. You'll notice that the latest stories in Luke and John appear apologetically motivated, thus providing a plausible explanation for invention.

Sorry, you simply can't speak for me here...because that is not what I "notice".

A more accurate argument would be this:

1. Reliable eyewitness testimony does not look like a legend evolving.
2. The gospel resurrection narratives look like a legend evolving.
3. Therefore, the gospel resurrection narratives are not reliable eyewitness testimony.

Since premise 2 is false, I don't even need to read premise 3.

We have a fundamental disagreement

We do.

here on the dates of the documents which I provide in my OP comparison. According to most experts they all date after 70. If you believe Irenaeus is reliable, he said Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul which took place in the mid 60s.
Since Mark is the first gospel and Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark then that means they're later.

Um, no. Irenaeus said that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would mean that Mark was obviously written even earlier than that.

But this is all a red herring. If the gospels all date before 70 that does nothing to refute the inconsistencies between the accounts. In fact, that makes it even harder to explain why each account tells an entirely different story!

Not so fast.

Gospels dating before 70 means...

1. Within the lifetime of the apostles.

2. Too early for legendary accounts.

So, a twofold of reasons.

Um, yes. What does an evolving legend in any other context look like? What would we expect to see?

What we'd expect to see is what we actually do see with those rejected, non-canonized books (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Peter, etc).

Nothing is wrong with your argumentation, you're just erroneously applying it to the wrong books.

Bless your heart.

"A presumed resurrection appearance" does not mean a narrative of that appearance was written yet.

?

But they all tell entirely different stories of what took place! Only Luke and John's account of the initial appearance in Jerusalem is consistent. The rest is not!

I've already addressed this, and I've been repetitive enough during this dialogue.

How can you honestly say that they contain the "same pieces of information"? That is not true. They're only the same if you ignore all the details that are different!

Well again, I've already addressed why the accounts may be different.

All you've provided was handwaving dismissals, which does nothing to negate my points.

Notice how your summary conspicuously leaves out the details of what each account actually says took place - lol!

Did I not acknowledge what each account states?

And you're begging the question by assuming Mark thought of the appearances in the same way as the later authors. You haven't presented any evidence for that.

Well, in Mark's account; the tomb was empty and the fact that Jesus had risen was affirmed, along with a planned rendezvous meeting point with Jesus.

The later authors also affirms this, but unlike Mark, they actually provided the details of the rendezvous meeting point.

So I'm not sure of your point here.

That's exactly when scholars think the gospels were composed! It goes like this:

Paul - 50s
Mark - around 70
Matthew - 80
Luke - 85 or later
John - 90-110 or later

You can look this up yourself!

I don't know what the consensus is, but not all scholars agree with the late dating.

From what I've come to know, there is more of a consensus of the late dating of John than the others.

Either way, we all have our theories..and it is all just a matter of belief.

As for myself, I have legitimate good reason as to why I'm saying before 70, and unless I see positive evidence which suggests otherwise, that's what I'm going with.

Would you like to provide evidence for your extremely early fringe dating theory?

I've spoken on this before on another thread, and it went entirely ignored. So hey.

Again, see Irenaeus on when Mark was written. If what he says was true then Mark was written after Peter and Paul were already dead.

See above, otherwise, I'll have to correct you again.

Ok and notice how Paul makes no distinction but uses the same verb when he places his vision in the list of other "appearances."

"Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to them and appeared (ὤφθη) to me last."

The same verb implies the same type of appearances.

Which is why you are leaving room for ambiguity.

But the Gospel accounts left no room for ambiguity.

So your verb/no-verb point is moot.

Empty tomb and "missing body" stories were a literary theme in fictional literature of the time period.
viewtopic.php?p=1067640#p1067640

Oh, is that right?

I guess the particular Jesus story related to those things was an anomaly, then.

Because based on Acts 17:19-23, the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers didn't seem to know what the hell Paul was talking about.

If what Paul was preaching (about Jesus and the Resurrection, v.18) were that common of a literally theme as you claim, then why did those who were present and heard it call it "new" and "strange"?

Makes no sense.

"Group appearances" are a non-starter if they believed he was appearing to them from heaven.

?

Do you believe the Virgin Mary sightings were really of her? She supposedly appeared to thousands.

The 1917 one, something miraculous happened. The only question is, whether it was based on divine holiness or satanic deception.

The problem is you don't have any first person account of any of those involved in the "group appearance" explaining what they or the others saw. You only have a narrative written in third person which is equally likely expected from a fictional account.

What I have is good enough for me.

An empty tomb doesn't mean anyone really saw a resurrected figure or that a resurrection actually took place.

An empty tomb in the Gospel narratives; that's exactly what it means.

A resurrection could only be verified by actually seeing a formerly dead person alive again.

Gospel narratives.

Paul may have implied an empty grave of some sort but that's not the same thing as corroborating a burial by Joseph or any women discovering a tomb empty. Paul gives absolutely no corroboration for the gospel account.

The Gospels corroborate what Paul said, and whether or not you buy this is based on whether you view the Gospels as credible, reliable accounts.

You don't. I do.

[AchillesHeel]

I don't know what else to do other than point out the challenge still wasn't met.

A legend developing starts off simple and then grows in widely fantastic ways adding stuff in that would have been important for earlier authors to mention. This is how we identify a legend growing in any other context and have no problem doing so.

Would a visual help you understand?



Here is a summary of the evolution to give a frame of reference for the evolution in the graph. The dates are according to the scholarly consensus.

1. Paul 50s, only talks about visions and mystical appearances. He does not give any evidence of a tomb being discovered empty.

2. Mark 70, introduces the empty tomb and predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee but does not narrate the appearance.

3. Matthew 80, has Jesus appear to the women immediately after they leave the tomb before telling any disciples, then there is an appearance to the Eleven in Galilee on a mountain which some "doubt" - Mt. 28:17.

4. Luke 85-95, alters what the angels say at the tomb and removes any reference to an appearance in Galilee. Instead, all Luke's appearances take place in or near Jerusalem. There is an appearance to Peter which is not described along with the appearance to two on the Emmaus Road. Jesus does a disappearing act then appears to the Eleven in Jerusalem where he invites his disciples to inspect his "flesh and bone" body and confirm he's "not a ghost." Then he eats a piece of fish in their presence! After that he is witnessed ascending to heaven!

5. John 90-110, the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb after she first tells Peter and the "other disciple" which contradicts Matthew's version. That same evening Jesus teleports through a locked door and appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we hear about the famous Doubting Thomas story (not mentioned anywhere else). Then, in Jn. 21 there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee involving a miraculous catch of 153 fish! This story isn't mentioned anywhere else either.

6. Gospel of Peter 2nd century, there is the dramatic scene where Jesus leaves the tomb with two giant angels and a talking cross!

Now, how can anyone honestly say this data does not look like a legend evolving? Why does the only firsthand account just mention visions and none of the amazing stuff from the later third person anonymous stories? Why would Mark leave out the immediate appearance to the women after they left the tomb? Why would Mark and Matthew not refer to an appearance in Jerusalem? Why would the disciples in Mt. 28:17 doubt the appearance in Galilee when they were already "overjoyed" in seeing him alive the same night of the resurrection as Jn. 20:19-20 says and then again a week later in the same place? Why would Luke erase all the mentions of an appearance in Galilee? Why does none of the vanishing/teleporting and bodily inspection stuff take place until the latest two accounts?

It's because each consecutive story is a later legend that developed.

Um, no. Irenaeus said that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would mean that Mark was obviously written even earlier than that.

Empirically, scholars know that Matthew copied from Mark's gospel. I've given evidence of this in the thread. Irenaeus was just wrong about the order here. Mark was written first as you already admitted earlier in the thread. He says Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul which took place in the mid 60s. So it cannot be the case that Mark was written before they died according to Irenaeus.

It doesn't matter if you want to date all the documents before 70. The progression throughout the accounts still holds. Saying there "wasn't enough time for a legend to develop" is false. We have legends that develop while people are still alive. Just see the 2020 election as an example. The North Korean dictators are another example how falsehoods can spread in a contemporary context. This article refutes your assertion. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/kom378030