There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[The Polimist]

He's just trolling.

That is obvious, I just wanted to see if he was actually going to attempt a cogent answer, or just dance... Mind Blown!.jpg

Welcome to TWeb.

Thanks

[seanD]

C
Obviously? I see absolutely nothing to indicate that Paul skipped a single sighting. Quite the contrary, it reads to me like he is listing every appearance that he knew of.

Why does he not mention the sighting by Mary, which was first according to one gospel? Why not the sighting by two disciples on the road to Emmaus? I think the most likely reason he neglected to mention them is that they had not been invented when he was talking to the disciples and got his information. Further, I think the big discrepancies between the gospel accounts shows that these embellishments were mostly added after the gospel tradition had split its four ways.

If the gospels are embellishments from the tradition Paul knew, then the gospels are obviously a downgrade from the number of eyewitnesses. Why would this help the resurrection apologetic?

[fm93]

I just wanted to see if he was actually going to attempt a cogent answer

He lacks the cognitive capacity to do that.

[Nathan Poe]

You'll have to elaborate here when it comes to the "supporting cast", are you perhaps referring to the prophecies in the OT which are attributed to the betrayal by Judas in the NT?

Not exactly -- By "supporting cast" I mean that several of the lesser players in the Jesus story (including Mary, Joseph, and of course, Judas) seem to have a lot of their biographical information lifted from various spots in the Old Testament -- from stories which are not considered by anyone to be prophecy.

And if the gospel narratives are true it seems pretty obvious to me that they should share similarities with things in the OT since one of the themes in the gospels are that Jesus fulfilled many of the OT prophecies.

Except I'm not talking prophecies -- I'm talking narratives.

For example, in Genesis 37:26-28, as Joseph's twelve brothers plot to kill him, one of the twelve, Judah, comes up with the bright idea instead to sell Joseph into slavery -- the price? 20 pieces of silver.

Notice the similarities? One out of a group of twelve literally sells out the hero for money -- the amount is almost the same(If you want the exact amount, you can find it in Zechariah 11), and even the names are Identical: Judah becomes Judas when spelled in Greek.

In 2 Samuel 17:23, Ahithophel, who tried to betray King David, hanged himself when he realized the jig was up. (Fun fact: did you know that there are only seven suicides recorded in the Bible? So when two of them are committed in identical ways for identical reasons, it kind of stands out)

And in the very same book (2 Samuel 20:9-10) we have a servant betraying his master with a kiss. Coincidence, perhaps? I'd agree if it wasn't in the same book, only a couple of chapters away from the suicide...

Rather than keep going, I'd like you to notice that we're not talking prophecies here -- we're talking narrative stories, stories with just a few too many coincidences to be ignored.

Yes, I presume we could. However, we do know that the gospels were written in a high-context society, and we do have good knowledge of how such a society works, so I see no reason why we should interpret it as a development of tradition when the explanation given by alluding to high-context societies explains it just as well, if not better. As I said, we know that it was a high-context society, but we don't know if there was a significant development in tradition, or even if there was, how extensive it was.

While I won't argue that the Jews were a high-context society, I think it behooves us to remember that the most influential early Christians -- including the "Doctors of the Church," Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, and Augustine -- were gentiles; hardly any Jews in the group. So the question is, how much knowledge did the people who developed the tradition have of Jewish context?

[The Pixie]

Adrift

There's actually good reason not to include the women as witnesses in Paul's short and non-exhaustive report.. Culturally female testimony was little regarded. This is why Geza Vermes writes that "The corollary must be, curious though this may sound, that for the historian it is Mark's evidence, the weakest of all, that possess the best claim for authenticity, the story brought by two women which - to quote Luke - the apostles themselves thought such 'nonsense' that they would not believe it." (emphasis mine)

It is not the testimony of the women that is being presented. The testimony that we have is (supposedly) Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. All men. Is your position that the testimony of men would be held in low regard if they report women seeing something first? I would love to see some siupport for that claim!

Course, this has all been shown dozens of times on this forum, but skeptics are sometimes so desperate to find any contradiction they can, that they seem to need to repeat the same canards over and over again in hopes that someone forgot. I got no problem with good honest skeptical inquiry, but I have a hard time believing this is done in that spirit most of the time. Its just an attempt to "win the debate".

It comes up time and time again because skeptics find this claim that the women were written out of the narrative to be so dubious.

Oh, and let us note that this explanations shows that authors modifying the story to make it more convincing. Is that really your position?

[The Pixie]

seanD

If the gospels are embellishments from the tradition Paul knew, then the gospels are obviously a downgrade from the number of eyewitnesses. Why would this help the resurrection apologetic?

It is certainly curious how only Paul mentions Jesus appearing to the 500. One explanation that comes to mind is that the Pauline version was itself a split from tradition, and the appearance to the 500 got added subsequent to the split. Christianity at this time was divided between the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, and the gentile Christians that Paul was concerned with, as I understand it. A story about an appearance to 500 hundred people in Jerusalem may have been rejected out of hand by the population of Jerusalem, but not by gentiles in Corinth, etc.

This is, I freely admit, speculation. We really do not know, and have no way of telling. All we can do is look at what we find the most likely explanation. So how do you explain the absence of this appearance, signficant as being the most public of all Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, in the gospels from a Christian perspective?

[seanD]

seanD

It is certainly curious how only Paul mentions Jesus appearing to the 500. One explanation that comes to mind is that the Pauline version was itself a split from tradition, and the appearance to the 500 got added subsequent to the split. Christianity at this time was divided between the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, and the gentile Christians that Paul was concerned with, as I understand it. A story about an appearance to 500 hundred people in Jerusalem may have been rejected out of hand by the population of Jerusalem, but not by gentiles in Corinth, etc.

This is, I freely admit, speculation. We really do not know, and have no way of telling. All we can do is look at what we find the most likely explanation. So how do you explain the absence of this appearance, signficant as being the most public of all Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, in the gospels from a Christian perspective?

So your argument is that the evolution of the resurrection tradition not only cut out the number of witnesses, but added women witnesses on top of that. K.

I explain the absences as omissions. Why? I can only speculate. What we do know is that Luke omitted things in his first first work that he included in his second work. JPH argues a "high-context" society (don't really know if he coined that concept or not). Sounds like a likely situation to me.

[The Pixie]

seanD

So your argument is that the evolution of the resurrection tradition not only cut out the number of witnesses, but added women witnesses on top of that. K.

That is not quite what I said. I would guess that it evolved in two branches, one with the Jewish Christians, where the appearance to 500 could not be counteranced, and with the gentile Christians, who would not object to claims of a mass sighting in Jerusalem. Presumably the figure of 500 is the result of exaggeration. The tradition had Jesus appear to a large group, which to the disciples, coming from Galilee, might have meant a few dozen people, but to Paul, from Tarsus, a large group meant considerably more. This was a "hugh-context" society, after all, and Paul's context would be very different to Peter's!

With regard to the women, I think what we see is the evolution of the gospel tradition in Jerusalem.

1. Jesus is seen in Galilee, first to Peter (the Pauline branches off here)
2. Tomb found empty, Jesus is seen in Galilee (as recorded in the original Mark)
3. Tomb found empty, Jesus is seen in Jerusalem (various traditions in each gospel)

Mark wanted to have the empty tomb as the triumphant ending to his work, but how to explain why no one at the time knew anything about an empty tomb (Mark was writing when people were still alive who might remember)? The solution was to have it found by women (whose testimony was considered poorly) - the silly women were struck by fear so kept the tomb secret, and this wondrous event is now being revealed in Mark's gospel.

Later, others could invent appearances around Jerusalem because by then people who were alive at the time were dead. But these were still based on Mark, so the women are still there.

I explain the absences as omissions. Why? I can only speculate. What we do know is that Luke omitted things in his first first work that he included in his second work. JPH argues a "high-context" society (don't really know if he coined that concept or not). Sounds like a likely situation to me.

How does a "high-context" society explain the omisions? High-context means that the authors assumed their audience shared much of their knowledge. If the author was referring to events in the OT, then that reference would be minimal, because he would assume the read was very familar with it.

Are you therefore saying that the authors of the gospels skipped the appeartance of Jesus to the 500 because it was already known? If so, why bother to write about the resurrection at all. Surely this was so well known it was not worth actually recording (indeed, this seems to be the position Mark takes, ending his gospel before Jesus appears to anyone).

However, this is not consistent with the added ending to Mark or the accounts in the other gospels. Each one appears to give a full account of the first few appearances by the resurrected Jesus, and I really do not get how a "high-context" society helps that.

I would guess Holding got "high-context" sociey from Malina and Rohrbaugh by the way; he seems to cite their work a lot.

One thing about narratives, oral traditions especially, in a high-context society; they are subject to recontextualization. That is, as the society changes, the meaning changes too. How different was the society of a group of Galilean peasants to that of the Jews in Jerusalem, to the Jews after the destruction of the temple, to the gentile author of Luke? A lot of opportunity for change.

[The Polimist]

It is certainly curious how only Paul mentions Jesus appearing to the 500.

Are you assuming here that Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to 500 people all at once? If so, you haven’t read what Paul said. The statements that Paul was making were concerning a cumulative experience of what he had, and that which was related to him from other eyewitnesses/sources. Therefore it is not odd at all (or curious) that he could comment on his experience, and that of others like him.

One explanation that comes to mind is that the Pauline version was itself a split from tradition, and the appearance to the 500 got added subsequent to the split. Christianity at this time was divided between the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, and the gentile Christians that Paul was concerned with, as I understand it. A story about an appearance to 500 hundred people in Jerusalem may have been rejected out of hand by the population of Jerusalem, but not by gentiles in Corinth, etc.

It seems that you are wont to proceed on conjecture alone here. Can you provide any contemporaneous writings to support your assertions? As we see below, you freely admit that you do not. Therefore, what we might want to do up front, is ask; “What is the real reason that you are attempting to pull apart Paul’s eyewitness testimony, and his reporting of those he has related to us?”

This is, I freely admit, speculation. We really do not know, and have no way of telling.

Actually, we do have a way of telling… We have Paul’s own words which tell us what he saw, and what others had related to him, of what they saw. To say that we “really do not know”, or that we “have no way of telling”, is either totally ignoring what Paul said (a type of ‘Argumentum ad Ignorantiam’), and attempting to wave a hand as if it doesn’t exist; or a total lack of comprehending what he said.

Which again begs the question: “What is the real reason that you are attempting to pull apart Paul’s eyewitness testimony, and his reporting of those he has related to us?”

All we can do is look at what we find the most likely explanation. So how do you explain the absence of this appearance, signficant as being the most public of all Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, in the gospels from a Christian perspective?

And that “most likely explanation”, is that Paul testified as to what he ‘eye-witnessed’, and related that which other eyewitnesses told him. To refute that you would have to provide evidence for your assertions. And that evidence would have to be contemporaneous, not mere modern speculation. Further, most all of the other New Testament writers plainly state their eyewitness statements of the resurrected Jesus (i.e. post-resurrection). If you are going to base your entire argument that you don’t have the writings of all 500 eyewitnesses Paul speaks of, or that none of the other writers mention the 500 hundred eyewitnesses, you are proceeding from a totally fallacious soapbox.

Firstly, this is nothing more than a red herring, because we have more than one writer of the New Testament that claim to have seen, talked to and handled the post resurrected Jesus. These eye-witnesses are heretofore unimpeachable, as absolutely no-one has proven them incorrect. Therefore there is absolutely no substantive reason to disbelieve them.

Secondly, you’re entire argument has thus far provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate its own assertions; other than you don’t agree with Paul’s writings.

Thirdly, the other Gospels, and the other letters, and the other testimonials in the New Testament, don’t even have to mention these “500” witnesses, they only have to mention what they have eye-witnessed, and what other eyewitnesses have related to them. Further, all of the Gospels mention (and at times in great detail) many other eye-witnesses to the post-resurrected Jesus; therefore any assertion that there are not enough eyewitnesses for the post-resurrected Jesus are moot, and can be thrown out as baseless.

[Chrawnus]

Not exactly -- By "supporting cast" I mean that several of the lesser players in the Jesus story (including Mary, Joseph, and of course, Judas) seem to have a lot of their biographical information lifted from various spots in the Old Testament -- from stories which are not considered by anyone to be prophecy.

Oh, ok.

Except I'm not talking prophecies -- I'm talking narratives.

For example, in Genesis 37:26-28, as Joseph's twelve brothers plot to kill him, one of the twelve, Judah, comes up with the bright idea instead to sell Joseph into slavery -- the price? 20 pieces of silver.

Notice the similarities? One out of a group of twelve literally sells out the hero for money -- the amount is almost the same(If you want the exact amount, you can find it in Zechariah 11), and even the names are Identical: Judah becomes Judas when spelled in Greek.

In 2 Samuel 17:23, Ahithophel, who tried to betray King David, hanged himself when he realized the jig was up. (Fun fact: did you know that there are only seven suicides recorded in the Bible? So when two of them are committed in identical ways for identical reasons, it kind of stands out)

And in the very same book (2 Samuel 20:9-10) we have a servant betraying his master with a kiss. Coincidence, perhaps? I'd agree if it wasn't in the same book, only a couple of chapters away from the suicide...

Rather than keep going, I'd like you to notice that we're not talking prophecies here -- we're talking narrative stories, stories with just a few too many coincidences to be ignored.

Funny thing is that many of these stories have by Christians been interpreted as pointing allegorically to Jesus and the redemptive history. If I recall correctly, these type of interpretations were very early in the church.

While I won't argue that the Jews were a high-context society, I think it behooves us to remember that the most influential early Christians -- including the "Doctors of the Church," Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, and Augustine -- were gentiles; hardly any Jews in the group. So the question is, how much knowledge did the people who developed the tradition have of Jewish context?

Well, first of all, being a high-context society wasn't limited to the Jewish society, but was a common trait that pervaded the whole of the ANE and mediterranean cultures, so it would have been a trait of the Greco-Roman culture too.

Secondly, what do you mean by "developed the tradition"? Are you perhaps talking about the formation of the canon, or are you talking about the information in the actual tradition itself? I.e, are you talking about changes in the narratives, or about changes in what books and epistles that were accepted? Or perhaps something else?

[The Pixie]

The Polimist

Are you assuming here that Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to 500 people all at once? If so, you haven’t read what Paul said. The statements that Paul was making were concerning a cumulative experience of what he had, and that which was related to him from other eyewitnesses/sources. Therefore it is not odd at all (or curious) that he could comment on his experience, and that of others like him.

Scripture Verse:

5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Okay, you got me. I must admit I was reading "at the same time" to mean, well, at the same time.

Er, can you talk me through why that is wong?

It seems that you are wont to proceed on conjecture alone here.

Well done. Was it that I started the paragraph with: "One explanation that comes to mind is..." that gave it away?

Can you provide any contemporaneous writings to support your assertions? As we see below, you freely admit that you do not.

So we are clear on that, right?

Pix: It is certainly curious how only Paul mentions Jesus appearing to the 500.
...
We really do not know, and have no way of telling.

Pol: Actually, we do have a way of telling… We have Paul’s own words which tell us what he saw, and what others had related to him, of what they saw. To say that we “really do not know”, or that we “have no way of telling”, is either totally ignoring what Paul said (a type of ‘Argumentum ad Ignorantiam’), and attempting to wave a hand as if it doesn’t exist; or a total lack of comprehending what he said.

Please quote Paul explaining why he mentions Jesus appearing to the 500 while the gospels do not. I would be very surprised to see such a thing in any Pauline (or pseudo-Pauline) epistle.

Alternatively, try reading what I said in context.

And that “most likely explanation”, is that Paul testified as to what he ‘eye-witnessed’, and related that which other eyewitnesses told him.

I agree. I think that that is - more or less - what happened, and it fits fine with what I have said earlier. I do not doubt Paul's sincerity, and I think it likely that he heard about Jesus' appearances occuring in the order he related them, and I find it very likely that he experienced something on the road to Damascus that he thought was Jesus.

Further, most all of the other New Testament writers plainly state their eyewitness statements of the resurrected Jesus (i.e. post-resurrection).

Not sure what you mean by this. I see nothing in the gospels that makes it clear any of them were eye witnesses. Luke and Matthew both recount the nativity, and neither were present at the event. Is there anywhere either of them make it clear what they have witnessed for themselves, and what they are repeating second (or third ort fourth...) hand?

If you are going to base your entire argument that you don’t have the writings of all 500 eyewitnesses Paul speaks of, or that none of the other writers mention the 500 hundred eyewitnesses, you are proceeding from a totally fallacious soapbox.

Way to miss the point.

[The Polimist]

The Polimist

Scripture Verse:

5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Okay, you got me. I must admit I was reading "at the same time" to mean, well, at the same time.

Er, can you talk me through why that is wong?

Nope, that was my bad… Early morning, what can I say? Anyway the point you are missing here is that the even doesn’t HAVE to be documented in any other New Testament book for it to be true. Further, you have no contemporaneous evidence that refutes this statement by Paul. Further, in this verse Paul claims that Peter (Cepahs) by himself, then the twelve together, then to James, then to “all the apostles”, and of course to Paul as well. There are absolutely no statements anywhere, from any of the New Testament writers, or anyone else that refute this statement by Paul. So, by what, other than your dislike of this passage, do you base your presuppositions on? Can you provide ANY contemporaneous evidence that Paul was incorrect? If so, please provide it!

I would also remind you that in the following verses are eyewitness claims to the resurrected Jesus. Can you provide other than your presupposed opinion to refute them either?

Mark 16:9, Matt. 28:9, Luke 24:13–15, Luke 24:34, John 20:19 & 24, John 20:26, John 21:1, Matt. 28:16 & 17, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9, 1 Cor. 15:8, 1 Cor. 15:7 etc…

[Chrawnus]

Chrawnus

That is a possibility, I accept. However, I find it more likely he said twelve because he thought there were twelve.

Why? Do you have a valid reason for that, or are you just looking to force a contradiction between Paul and the Gospels?

Obviously? I see absolutely nothing to indicate that Paul skipped a single sighting. Quite the contrary, it reads to me like he is listing every appearance that he knew of.

And I see nothing of that in the text. What I see is Paul listing 6 appearances, but nothing that indicates he meant the list to be exhaustive.

Why does he not mention the sighting by Mary, which was first according to one gospel? Why not the sighting by two disciples on the road to Emmaus? I think the most likely reason he neglected to mention them is that they had not been invented when he was talking to the disciples and got his information. Further, I think the big discrepancies between the gospel accounts shows that these embellishments were mostly added after the gospel tradition had split its four ways.

I believe Adrift gave a pretty good answer when it comes to the appearances to Mary and the other women. And I could easily turn the question around. Why should he have included the sighting by Mary, or the appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus?

Regarding the "discrepancies", unlike you I don't question-beggingly assume that there really was any genuine contradictions when it comes to the appearances. As long as one can fit together the different narratives in atleast largely harmonious parts I don't see why one should accept that there are contradictions. And I believe the gospels have been reconciled to a higher degree than just generally.

I really do not doubt your ability to spin this, but I have to say, you are not going to convince anyone who does not already believe.

Scripture Verse:

1 cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Okay, it is possible Paul is skipping appearances, but it really does not read like that to me.

I don't see why it should matter a bit how it "reads to you".

I accept that. Now I am wondering why Luke wanted to play down that first appearance so drastically.

How do you know he was playing down the appearance? Just because the actual reference is short does not mean it's downplayed.

Oh, and why do the other three gospels not have the appearance to Peter first?

Uh, maybe they couldn't include it due to writing constraints?

In fact, what do you think is the full order (for the first few appearances anyway), Chawnus? Here we have six accounts of the resurrection, by what you presumably consider to be five reliable witnesses. I am sure you can tell us what did happen on that first Easter, the single most important day in Christian history. Right?

I don't know why I should be obliged to answer that inquiry when you can't even show that there are genuine contradictions between the narratives. However if you're that interested maybe this could be of help:

http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm

It is generally accepted among biblical scholars that Mark ended at verse 8, so I believe that.

Well, I don't believe that it ended at verse 8, however I don't think verses 9-20 constituted the original ending either.

However, there are those extra verses that someone added. Is your position that the addition is not canon? If we both agree that the ending of Mark is unreliable and embellished, then any contradiction with other gospels becomes irrelevant. I was guessing you would not want to go there.

I have no problems with the thought that verses 9-20 was not in the original text. Does not change anything for me. I'm not one of those guys that panic as soon as they find out that the gospels we have right now might not correspond word-to-word with the original manuscripts.

I would have thought that that was expected for historical sources, depending on the situation. An ancient historian claiming to document a certain event, but clearly omitting significant facts, certainly should be considered suspect. For example, if Julius Caesar's memoirs occasionally skipped a battle or two, then they would be considered much less reliable.

You're begging the question here. You're assuming that all of the appearances should have held just as much weight to all of the gospel writers. Besides, all of the authors likely wrote their gospels with different intentions in mind, and that would have meant that each of them included some things and omitted other, based on the purpose of the gospel and by writing constraints. There is a high possibility that by including all of the appearances they would have had to omit other parts of the narratives that they were not willing to omit. Which would mean that the optimal thing for them to do would be to include those appearances that would have held the most importance to the original readers of each particular gospel.

Let us recall that the resurrection was the defining event of Christianity. Every appearance was (and still is) very important, and the first appearance was of the utmost significance. And each gospel goes some way to detailing that event. They just seem to describe totally different events...

To some extent, yes. However, since I believe that the gospel accounts contains eyewitness accounts I believe that is because the authors had access to different eyewitnesses and sources and because of that it's only natural that the events wouldn't be related in the same way.

False dichotmy. There is a middle ground in which each author describes the same event from a different viewpoint. This is what witnesses are expected to do in a courtroom, and I find it more than a little disingenuous that you have apparently not thought of this.

Actually, that's exactly what I think the gospels are doing. You're the who's arbitrarily judging that the narratives are so widely different that one can't trust them. I don't see that.

Option 1: Each author describes the same event, differing only in the phrases used.

Option 2: Each author describes what they say is the same event, but they vary widely, even in major regards such as who was present.

Option 3: Each author describes the same event, differing in minor details that can be explained by what one author noticed compared to the other.

Can you see the difference here? The first looks like they collaborated. The second looks like they made it up. The third is convincing.

Well, I don't agree with you on what should be counted as significant differencies, so I don't really agree with your assessment.

As I said, I accept it as a possibility. I just do not find that convincing. As with the spiritual body thing, we can never know for sure what he meant. I appreciate that it is necessary to your faith that all these other appearances are injected; however, if you view it objectively, it reads like he was giving an exhaustive list.

It does? I don't see that anywhere in the text.

If Jesus really did appear to Mary first, then I would expect Paul to include it because it was the first sighting of the resurrected Jesus!

Even when testimonies by women were regarded as less trustworthy at that time?

It was the first sighting of the resurrected Jesus. That is itself a huge reason to include it.

Can you suggest a reason not to?

It was the first appearance by a woman. I'm not trying to sound like Epoetker here, but the fact of the matter is that women weren't seen as reliable witnesses and because of that Paul would have been much more inclined to disregard those appearances if he could include witnesses by other people who were seen as more reliable in that time, namely male witnesses. I'm not even implying that Paul himself thought like this (though I'm not discounting the possibility that he might have), only that the recipients might have, and that's sufficient reason for Paul to omit these appearances.

Seriously? This is the best you can do?

You don't think humility is a good enough reason? Besides, if as it is as I believe that we have lost the original ending to Mark it could well have been that it included the appearance to Peter.

At least you agree that the narrative was not historical, but was reported subject to the whim of those writing it.

I don't see how omitting certain facts means that the narratives are not historical. There is no logical connection between those two statements.

By the way, do you think the ending of Mark was written by Mark? most scholars say it was not, so in that event, this rationalisation really does not work.

No I don't think so, but I don't believe it ended at verse 8 either. I believe we've lost the original ending.

Any evaluation of historical documents comes down to "arbitrary judgements" at the end of the day.

Yes, but you appear to have nothing except arbitrary judgements. Usually one can give atleast some type of valid reasoning why one thinks as one does, but you don't appear to be able to do that.

So tell me about the nature of the list and Paul's intentions with it, and show it is plausible, instead of mere empty assertions.

Well, first of all, I find it interesting that he mentions only two persons by name in that list namely Cephas/Peter and James. Paul writes in Gal 1:18-19 that Cephas and James, the brother of Jesus, was the only two apostles he met in Jerusalem during his fifteen days in Jerusalem. This would explain why he gave those two names in his list, because he had personally talked to them and could attest that they really did claim to be witnesses. Peter could have told him about the appearances to the twelve and the apostles and the 500 hundred brethren (and Paul could have talked to some of these 500 hundred to check it up), while omitting the appearances to the women (remember how their witness would have been seen as less reliable), or even if he did tell Paul of the appearances to the women Paul could simply have omitted them from his list because he recognised that they would have been seen as less reliable by his readers. Paul was probably giving that list to show that the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus was reliable history, and including testimonies from women would have been detrimental to that.

Galatians 1:18-19

Gal 1:18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

I am not a Christian, so it is not like the sky falling down on me. I find it an interesting history, made all the more fascinating because so many people accept is as "gospel".

I was referring to the fact that you seem to think that these differences shows that the gospels and Paul's writing are not trustworthy.

When they are substantially differing, then absolutely yes!

Do you not?

Yes, but it depends entirely on where and how they differ. Accounts that differ in the persons they include is not an example that falls under that, because that can be explained by the writers having access to different eyewitness accounts.

[Nathan Poe]

Funny thing is that many of these stories have by Christians been interpreted as pointing allegorically to Jesus and the redemptive history. If I recall correctly, these type of interpretations were very early in the church.

So much, then, for the high-context society of the Jews who wrote both the old Old and the New Testaments -- The Church almost completely dismissed Jewish history and culture by reducing it to nothing more than a prequel to their own.

Do you really think the best way to interpret the Bible is to dismiss its Jewish origins?

Well, first of all, being a high-context society wasn't limited to the Jewish society, but was a common trait that pervaded the whole of the ANE and mediterranean cultures, so it would have been a trait of the Greco-Roman culture too.

Correct -- but two different societies mean two different contexts -- the Greeks knew the context of their own society well enough, but that doesn't mean they'd know or care about Jewish culture.

Second, what would that mean to Hellenized Jews who were removed (or removed themselves) from their own society and acculturated into the Greek? They would be removed from the culture which produced both the Old and New Testaments, although admittedly, they would have a better foundation than most of the people who composed the Early Church.

Secondly, what do you mean by "developed the tradition"? Are you perhaps talking about the formation of the canon, or are you talking about the information in the actual tradition itself? I.e, are you talking about changes in the narratives, or about changes in what books and epistles that were accepted? Or perhaps something else?

All of the above and then some -- I'm talking about how the doctrines, interpretations, and beliefs that go into what we call "Christianity" came from non-Jews reading a Jewish anthology of sacred literature. Nothing about that scenario suggests a productive result.

[The Pixie]

The Polimist

Nope, that was my bad… Early morning, what can I say?

No problem.

Anyway the point you are missing here is that the even doesn’t HAVE to be documented in any other New Testament book for it to be true. Further, you have no contemporaneous evidence that refutes this statement by Paul. Further, in this verse Paul claims that Peter (Cepahs) by himself, then the twelve together, then to James, then to “all the apostles”, and of course to Paul as well. There are absolutely no statements anywhere, from any of the New Testament writers, or anyone else that refute this statement by Paul. So, by what, other than your dislike of this passage, do you base your presuppositions on? Can you provide ANY contemporaneous evidence that Paul was incorrect? If so, please provide it!

The other comtempory evidence is in the gospels. The issue here is that they give a very different story. Luke grudgingly acknowledges Peter was first, but Matthew, Mark and John say otherwise.

Paul says Jesus appeared to the twelve, Matthew, Mark and Luke to eleven, and John knocks that down to ten. Okay, that can be rationised by saying that Paul meant the eleven - or ten - disciples who were part of the group called the Twelve, but that is not what Paul actually wrote.

Where in the gospels is the appearance of Jesus to James on his own. Why does Paul not mention the appearance of Jesus to Mary (or both Marys, depending on which gospel). Why does Paul omit the ascension; was this event not important enough? The pentacoste? Hugely important events, but not worth mentioning by Paul? Or was that part of the theology not invented yet?

By the way, I do not dislike the passage in Paul. On the contrary, I think that that more accurately reflects what happened, as it was written earlier. Speculating again, I would guess that after the crucifiction, the disciples all returned to their old lives. Some time later Peter experienced something he thought to be Jesus, and restarted the religion (this is why the true end of Mark foreshadows an appearance in Galilee, and why Peter was a fisherman again in have John 21).