Is He Live or is He Memorex?
Last year about this time, I celebrated Easter as a committed believer of our Risen and Living Savior. I have done so every Easter I can remember except for a rebellious stint I had while in my 20s (we all have those, no?). The one thing I knew for certain was that it was impossible to be a true Christian without this conviction.
.…and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. - 1 Cor 15:17-19 (NASB)
Of course I believed in the Resurrection. It is a foundational belief. It is essential. As CS Lewis would say, it is part of “Mere Christianity”.
I have always been an avid reader, and I always saw books in the library or store that had titles that just screamed, “Open my cover and browse my pages if you dare. For we are here to challenge your Christian beliefs!” My church pastors had words for authors of books like this: Pseudo-Intellectuals, who “professing themselves to be wise, they had become fools” (Rom 1:22). They were likely angry apostates, out on an agenda to debunk The Word of God, the Anvil that has worn our many Hammers. It was easy to pass by these books left on the shelf without thinking another thought.
Upon entering graduate school, I was introduced to the Internet, and I was soon a little overwhelmed with the ease that I could obtain information. More than I few times, before I knew better, I had accidentally hit a porn site while in the school computer lab, and I would be furiously clicking the “close” button before an administrator noticed! The power of the Internet, the Information Superhighway, where articles and opinions were shoved in your face before you had a chance to see what was on the cover.
While working in the lab late one night all those years ago, I stumbled onto this site, an article by Dan Barker, self-proclaimed minister turned atheist, which challenged the reader to take what he called the Resurrection Challenge. The Resurrection Challenge was a challenge to harmonize the accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Four Gospels, and the one in 1 Corinthians 15 to remove the (apparent) contradictions. Dan Barker was a Christian minister who became an atheist simply because, he claimed, he found Christianity to be unbelievable. Another angry apostate! I read a few paragraphs of the article, but did not finish it. Of course the Gospels could be harmonized - we are only talking about the inerrant Word of God here! Sure the angels appear in different places in Jesus’ tomb, sure they said different things, but those details are so minor, so trivial, when considering he entire overarching theme of the Resurrection. The funny thing is, I never took it upon myself to at see if the Resurrection accounts could be harmonized. I knew they could, and that settled it. I clicked the browser window closed and did not give the Resurrection Challenge another thought.
Until last year. I was hosting our small group Bible Study, and the seeds of doubt had begun in my own faith. I was still a Christian, a believer in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I was scrounging around the Internet looking for some resources, until I again stumbled on, you guess it, the long forgotten Resurrection Challenge. This time, I read the entire article. Then I grabbed a steno pad, pencil with sturdy eraser, and attempted the Resurrection Challenge.
I admitted defeat in about 5 minutes.
Undaunted, I itemized most of the discrepancies that I found in the Resurrection Accounts just to see how many there were. Some of the contradictions are listed in the original article, but I had to check for myself. I was stunned at how divergent the accounts were. Not only were they contradictory in nature, they were practically completely different stories! This was not a case of several different eyewitness getting the story details slightly different, this was wholesale opposition. The truth of one Gospel account had to imply the falsehood of the other.
I listed the portions of the Resurrection accounts which diverged from the other accounts, and gave up after a couple hours. It really rattled me. If God wants us to believe in the Resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ, why are all these accounts so different? If God wants us to believe, why did he make his recording of events so inconsistent with each other? If these were separate Police reports of the same event, would they even be considered? What truth could be gleaned from them?
Read the original article here. Take the Resurrection Challenge. What do you draw from your conclusions?
A list of some of the contradictions is at the end of Barker’s article. But he did not list one that I found, one that I consider perhaps the most troublesome and baffling contradiction in the entire Bible. It concerns whether Christ rose in the Flesh, or rose in the Spirit. Here I list two accounts from the Resurrection narratives:
Account 1)
In 1 Cor 15, Paul is speaking of the resurrection of the dead, following the example of the resurrected Christ. He makes this remark that states Jesus was risen with a Spiritual, and most emphatically not Physical body.
So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1 Cor 15:42-44 (NASB) – but read the whole chapter for good context.
Account 2)
The resurrected Jesus has just disappeared from Emmaus, and has appeared to the eleven remaining disciples in
Jerusalem. He mentions that he has a Physical, and most emphatically not Spiritual body.
While they (the eleven disciples) were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. Luke 24:36-43 (NASB)
The only way I have seen these two passages reconciled is with the tried and true Harmonization by Omission tactic. I have heard the theory that Jesus could have risen as spirit, ascended to heaven while nobody was around, then came back to Earth as flesh. I won’t even entertain that idea here, because to give it credibility is to be desperate to even include sheer brute force to make this issue harmonize.
Some Christians concede that while the details of particular passages may differ, the essence remains consistent. I don’t see a consistent essence in this case. Everything differs except the amorphous detail that Jesus rose. What message he left, who he saw, what form he took and what he did remains unknown, because not a single detail can be reconciled.
The essence of Jesus life through the Gospels seems to be consistent, at least through the Synoptics. He taught similar things, he performed similar miracles, and events can be harmonized with a little ironing over rough details. Why do the events diverge so greatly after the crucifixion? There is general agreement that Mark is the first Gospel to be written, and many scholars agree that there is not much of a Resurrection story in that Gospel. Many scholars agree that the Gospel ends at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing the sepulcher in fear. The End. If that is true, could it be that when Matthew and Luke were independently compiling their Gospels from Mark, and left with a paucity of Resurrection material, had to elaborate their own accounts from Oral Tradition and legend? What about John? Perhaps he had to derive things independently as well, thus four wildly divergent Resurrection accounts.
That is the only thing that makes sense to me. Is the Resurrection of our Savior Myth and Legend?
Tomorrow I will go to mass with my wife and celebrate Easter with her. I want to believe, I truly do, but what am I to hold my faith on? I am convinced that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is incorrect, so do I have nothing to go on but 2000 year-old hear-say? I want to believe because I am afraid to discard a belief I have held my entire life. I want to believe for the sake of my family, and the sake of my wife.
I am afraid to say it. But I must admit it. This will be the first Easter that I celebrate as a non-believer.
April 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
HIS –
How did your wife react when you showed her your attempt at the Resurrection challenge? And how is she taking your journey now?
**I am convinced that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is incorrect, so I have nothing to go on but 2000 year-old hear-say. ** What about personal experiences, in terms of interacting with God?
**This will be the first Easter that I celebrate as a non-believer. ** I hope you’ll still be able to take some joy or comfort in the service, even as you’re still seeking.
April 7th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
HIS,
Great post. I went through a very similar journey where the Bible fell apart for me. My faith was more based on belief in the Word than experiential so when the Word failed, my faith began to go.
aA
April 7th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Wow, HIS, the Resurrection challenge definitely is thought-provoking. There is no way anyone can be intellectually honest with themselves and with others and reconcile all of those discrepancies, in my opinion.
I’m sure this whole journey has been difficult for you– I hope you have enjoy your day with your family tomorrow.
Tomorrow will be the first Easter that I do not definitely “know” that Jesus was resurrected. I am up in the air right now on whether I believe in it or not (if I do believe it, I sure don’t know the exact details of it). I’m sure it will be a different feeling. Anyway, I know I’m wishing you the best, and I’m sure everyone else is too. . . have a great Easter!
April 7th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Sorry, HIS, I took your Easter Challenge and didn’t find it too challenging.
What time did the women visit the tomb?
• Matthew: “as it began to dawn” (28:1)
• Mark: “very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun” (16:2, KJV); “when the sun had risen” (NRSV); “just after sunrise” (NIV)
• Luke: “very early in the morning” (24:1, KJV) “at early dawn” (NRSV)
• John: “when it was yet dark” (20:1)
OK, this could be within the same 15 minutes. You should stop sleeping in and see how fast the sun comes up.
Who were the women?
• Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
• Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
• Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
• John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
Better question is WHEN were the women? They were probably all there at some time or another. Women love rubbernecking.
What was their purpose?
• Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
• Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
• Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
• John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
The spicing was done by the two men prior to leaving the body on that first night. They had a lot of myrrh and oils that they likely did not have time to apply before the Sabbath. The women could have brought their own spices on Sunday morning, since the body wouldn’t have begun serious decomposition until the next day. Matthew’s silence on whether they had spices or not is a dust particle of discrepancy. Who’s to say they didn’t have them?
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
• Matthew: No (28:2)
• Mark: Yes (16:4)
• Luke: Yes (24:2)
• John: Yes (20:1)
Actually, Matthew concurs with the other gospels. The women were coming to the tomb. The angel descended and opened the tomb and sat on the rock. Now had the women arrived BEFORE the rock was rolled away, would they have not seen Jesus? Does it mention a sighting of Jesus? No. The logical reading is: women are on their way, the rock is rolled aside, women arrive.
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
• Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
• Mark: One young man (16:5)
• Luke: Two men (24:4)
• John: Two angels (20:12)
The angels are the most debatable, in fact the only, debatable topic that doesn’t fall apart instantly here.
Where were these messengers situated?
• Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
• Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
• Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
• John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
• Matthew: “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.” (28:5-7)
• Mark: “Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” (16:6-7)
• Luke: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” (24:5-7)
• John: “Woman, why weepest thou?” (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
• Matthew: Yes (28:8)
• Mark: No. “Neither said they any thing to any man.” (16:8)
• Luke: Yes. “And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.” (24:9, 22-24)
• John: Yes (20:18)
Mark does not concur because it ended. The women did not say anything. Does that mean they never spoke about it again? How long do you think the women stayed quiet?
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
• Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
• Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
• Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
• John: No (20:2)
In John, she knows He wasn’t there, and wonders where they have taken Him. So, you think she’s been told that He is risen and perhaps she doesn’t believe 100% yet? Could it be?
When did Mary first see Jesus?
• Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
• Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
• John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
This doesn’t add up. Each case she saw Jesus afterward. I’ve re-read the Scriptures several times and there clearly is a mistake in the “challenge”. Perhaps you should have done a “challenge” of the challenge!
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
• Matthew: Yes (28:9)
• John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
No in John 20:17 for “He had not yet ascended”. We can’t be certain what that means exactly but we can be sure that He was touchable afterward. There is no conflict here.
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
• Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
• Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
• Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
• John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
• Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
The story in Mark and Luke is the same story. The fact that that story is omitted in the other gospels is not relevant. It seems that you accept the idea that the gospels had to be from the same perspective. Then they would not be gospels, they’d be “The Same Exact Story According to John” etc.
The Twelve had certainly eleven members at the time Jesus appeared to them. They were still a group of 12 positions as evidenced by the fact that Matthias was elevated to the spot that Judas had filled soon after. Note the words “then to THE twelve”. Also, look up Luke 24:36 – it doesn’t line up at all. Did you bother to look up these verses?
Luke 24:36 – KJV - And as they thus spake (5723) , Jesus himself stood (5627) in the midst of them, and saith (5719) unto them, Peace be unto you.
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
• Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
• Mark: To two in the country, to eleven “as they sat at meat” (16:12,14)
• Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
• John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Does he mean FIRST APPEAR or FIRST MENTIONED that He appeared? Look these up for yourself. I’m getting tired.
Did the disciples believe the two men?
• Mark: No (16:13)
• Luke: Yes (24:34–it is the group speaking here, not the two)
In Luke, the word had already gotten out when they told the eleven. In Mark it simply calls the group they tell “the rest” or “the residue”. This is hardly a categorical contradiction.
What happened at the appearance?
• Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, “Go preach.” (28:17-20)
• Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said “Go preach” (16:14-19)
• Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
• John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Again, this is all predicated on an assumption that the first appearance is the same as the first appearance mentioned. By the way, your worry about Jesus’ “spiritual body” that could eat meat is not reasonable. It is after all a BODY. Or do you think our spiritual bodies will be like Casper the friendly ghost’s body where the food falls through his transparent belly?
This whole framing of the questions reads like a clever lawyer trying to get out of a contract particularly where omissions in the Scriptures and assumptions in their interpretations are counted as contradictions. I have frankly seen enough. The last two complaints are not even worth a response.
Here is my Easter challenge to you.
1) Would all the apostles who witnessed these sensational events have suffered horribly and given their lives if they knew for certain that this was all a fairy tale? They had to know for sure one way or the other, no?
2) Better yet, if their reward was in Heaven, and Heaven was made tangible to them through eyewitness, wouldn’t that explain why they didn’t seek their treasure here on this earth as did Mohammed and Joseph Smith and so many others?
3) Where is your complaint about these complaints? There are Bible verses that are misrepresented here and numerous omissions that are painted as contradictions.
4) While we’re combing the biblical record for inconsistencies, where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the evidence, the proofs for the alternative, more reasonable account that the agnostic and atheist truly believe in?
5) If the gospels were based on myths then how do you explain its success? The early church grew, many were killed, yet it grew and grew after every persecution. Studying the early church gives us the impression that something supernatural was at work there. Islam was spread by the sword (still is) but Christianity had nothing to defend its first 280 years…unless a living Lord was nurturing it….
Looking up these verses I read this passage again. John 20:15 - “Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
I had forgotten that. She had mistaken Him for the GARDENER. The woman finds her Savior in the garden who has just crushed the head of the serpent. He is indeed the gardener, her gardener and ours. The curse against the serpent in Genesis 3:15 comes full circle in that passage. Coincidence? Myth? Or the forgiveness of our sins?
Happy Easter!
April 8th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Jim, you attempted to address many of the discrepancies, and you did a pretty good job of that. But you didn’t actually take the challenge listed. The actual challenge is here: **Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.**
April 8th, 2007 at 12:59 am
HeIsSailing sez:
“In 1 Cor 15, Paul is speaking of the resurrection of the dead, following the example of the resurrected Christ. He makes this remark that states Jesus was risen with a Spiritual, and most emphatically not Physical body.”
Are you sure that a spiritual body is NOT a physical body? The distinction that 1 Corinthians makes is not between physical and spiritual, it’s between natural and spiritual. Paul even lists the differences:
- the natural body, put into the ground as a seed, is in dishonor; the spiritual body that is raised is glorious
- one is perishable, the other is not
- one is weak, the other is powerful
Nothing about one being physical, and the other not. We are the ones who have created the physical/spiritual dichotomy, not the Bible. It is interesting to note that Jesus is able to both eat and to walk through walls. There are a number of references to eating in heaven, the most notable being the marriage supper of the Lamb. This fits perfectly with the kind of body that Jesus showed after his resurrection.
He did point out that his body was flesh and blood, he was not a spirit. A spirit doesn’t need a body. That is different from having a spiritual body - a body that can live in the spiritual realm.
2 Corinthians 5:1-4 makes such a difference very clear:
“For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down � when we die and leave these bodies � we will have a home in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long for the day when we will put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. For we will not be spirits without bodies, but we will put on new heavenly bodies. Our dying bodies make us groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and have no bodies at all.”
Thomas was able to touch the holes in Jesus’ hands and side.
We tend to look at natural things as being more vivid, more substantial than spiritual things. Perhaps this is because our natural eyes are seldom able to perceive spiritual things. From the Biblical perspective, the spiritual is the original rather than the reflection; it is more substantial, more vivid, more rich than the natural.
Jesus’ spiritual body is both flesh and blood and able to pass through walls. Scientists are just now beginning to understand the properties of matter in such a way that this is physically conceivable.
As for the Resurrection Challenge, I have say I’m with Jim on this one. I can understand how an articulated argument - any articulated argument - could be highly disconcerting to someone who has based their understanding of the world on what Richard Dawkins terms “the suspension of disbelief” - basically, willing ignorance. What I don’t see is how it poses a challenge to the Bible on any reasonable or logical basis. Dan Barker, a former minister (presumably, with some education on Biblical subjects) - and this is the best he could come up with? C’mon! This is the kind of argument that makes religious people arrogant; that leads them to believe it’s okay not to think. I am going to shut up now because I can feel myself entering into “rant” mode.
HeIsSailing, is it possible that the reason you give people like Barker and Dawkins so much credit is due to the fact that they were “forbidden” to you for so long? Or the fact that they dare to ask questions that are (logical or not) so far over the line of what is acceptable to popular Christianity? They just don’t seem to fit your style.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Can’t comment much here, I am getting ready for Church. I have only time for this:
JennyPo
“HeIsSailing, is it possible that the reason you give people like Barker and Dawkins so much credit is due to the fact that they were “forbidden” to you for so long? ”
I never gave them credit. I never said they were right about anything. There were many things about the Dawkins video I disagreed with - I just asked for a critique.
The bottom line of all of this is here - I addressed it in a previous article. If God can give Moses 20 Chapters of detailed instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, Feasts and Ceremonies, why are our instructions, our stories, our basis for salvation so blasted inconsistant and confusing?
April 8th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Jenny,
**What I don’t see is how it poses a challenge to the Bible on any reasonable or logical basis. Dan Barker, a former minister (presumably, with some education on Biblical subjects) - and this is the best he could come up with? ** I’m not trying to push you more rant mood, but I’m with JfC on this one. The Resurrection Challenge was to put the events from the Resurrection to the Ascenscion in chronological order, using all the references, without omitting any details. Jim didn’t do that, he addressed why the discrepencies in the texts can be harmonized.
Jim,
**Actually, Matthew concurs with the other gospels. The women were coming to the tomb. The angel descended and opened the tomb and sat on the rock. Now had the women arrived BEFORE the rock was rolled away, would they have not seen Jesus? Does it mention a sighting of Jesus? No. The logical reading is: women are on their way, the rock is rolled aside, women arrive.** The article did address this, though. The article says that Mark, Luke and John say it was rolled away before, whereas in Matthew, the passage is in the aorist/past tense and begins with “And, behold,” which goes along with chronological order. Also, I’m not sure how the women arriving before the rock rolled away means they would have seen Jesus. Matthew and Mark have them see an angel, and see Jesus when they’re far away from the tomb.
April 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Heissailing says, “The bottom line of all of this is here - I addressed it in a previous article. If God can give Moses 20 Chapters of detailed instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, Feasts and Ceremonies, why are our instructions, our stories, our basis for salvation so blasted inconsistant and confusing?”
Heissailing: I don’t presume to be a Bible scholar, or even well-read. (your book list seemed huge to me; I was jealous that you have so much time to read). But you are overlooking one very important detail with this question. Moses only had what God physically told him. He had to rely on the details God gave him for everything. We have the Holy Spirit who reveals things to us - things that may not seem so clear at first. This is wayyy better than what Moses had. I’ve often thought how difficult it might have been to be living back then. I might have questioned, “Do I remember this right?” or “Maybe I just dreamed that angel” or “Did God mean like this? or like that?” With the Holy Spirit, I only have to ask and He clarifies. I must listen for His answer, but He directs and guides. We have far more than Moses did. If God had spelled things out for us like He did for Moses, it would be even easier to become little Pharisees running around “following all the rules” - not that that doesn’t already happen to many. No, God wants us to get our answers from Him directly, through the Holy Spirit (who uses a 2000-year-old book to guide us), not just from a 2000-year-old book that we might question the authenticity of. I know this might sound a little like I am a charismatic, but I assure you I do not worship the Holy Spirit; I only accept what God has told us about Him. And I see the proof of that in my own experience. He is God and He reveals God to us.
April 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Joeyanne,
**No, God wants us to get our answers from Him directly, through the Holy Spirit (who uses a 2000-year-old book to guide us), not just from a 2000-year-old book that we might question the authenticity of. I know this might sound a little like I am a charismatic, but I assure you I do not worship the Holy Spirit; I only accept what God has told us about Him.** Would that work for everyone, though? Because even 300 hundred years ago, you would have people saying that the Holy Spirit has told them slavery is okay, and they would say the Holy Spirit guided them to the passages justifying that position. Same with the Inquisition — people felt guided into doing that, and accepted that God told them the behavior was right. They were also convinced that anyone who spoke otherwise contradicted the Bible. There isn’t even a foulproof way here of determining inerrency of the Bible, because it also depends on a person’s perspective.
Not only that, but the Bible needs to also be placed in its cultural context for the message to really be clear to me.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Okay. I tried it, and this is what I’ve got so far. And trying to read all these and put them in order makes my brain hurt. I only really went through the empty tomb, going to the disicples and Jesus’s appearances. If I went further, this would’ve gotten longer.
The Resurrection.
-Matthew says in early morning, Mary of Magdalen and the other Mary to see the grave. There was an earthquake, and angel rolled the stone away and sat on it. The guards became like dead men and the angel spoke to the women.
Mark – Mary Magdelene and Mary the mother of James and Salome brought spices, wondering who would roll away the stone, but found that it was already opened when they got there. They went inside, found a youth sitting on the right hand side who told them about Jesus.
Luke – The women get spices, go to the tomb that’s already opened, go inside and find that the body is gone. While standing there, two men appear and say what happened. The women go and tell the Eleven and others what happened. The women weren’t believed, but Peter does go to the tomb and sees the burial clothes.
John – Mary goes and sees that the stone was removed. She goes to the disicples and says that they took Jesus’s body and and no one knows where they put the body. She goes to the disicples, Peter and the beloved disicple race back to see what happened. They then go home, Mary stays while crying. She peers into the tomb, and sees two angels sitting whre the body had been, one at the head and one at the feet. She says she doesn’t know where Jesus is, then turns and sees “the gardener,” then learns that he is Jesus. Mary goes and says that she saw Jesus.
If putting this in chronological order – The Gospels say that women went in dawn/dark/early morning. John says that only Mary, and that Mary just found an empty tomb. In Matthew, Mary and the other Mary see the stone rolled away, and the angel coming and sitting on it, telling them what happened, and to tell others. This would place the angel outside the tomb. However, Mark has them go in and see a youth sitting on the right-hand side, and that they were dumbfounded. The youth says to them what happened, and tells them to tell others. Luke has the stone rolled away, the women entering and not finding a body and thus confused. Then two men are suddenly seen while inside the tomb. Now, if an angel told them outside the tomb what happened, then they shouldn’t be this confused while inside the tomb, and yet Mark and Luke give the impression that they had no information until inside the tomb and people appeared. John has Mary coming alone at daybreak, seeing the stone removed, and then running back to the disciples, saying that they took Jesus and she doesn’t know where the body is. The other three gospels have her delivering a message of Jesus from the angels. Peter and the beloved one investigate, and then go home while Mary stands there crying. Jesus then appears. John shows Mary telling the disicples of Jesus’s resurrection after she encounters him. Matthew and Luke have the women sharing what the angels tell them, and the disicples not believing, although Luke has Peter looking at the tomb. Plus, in Matthew, as the women were running to the disicples, Jesus meets them, and then tells the women to go tell his brothers to go to Galilee, and then they’ll see Jesus. But he’s looking based on the angels speaking of the resurrection, while John has them doing so because Mary doesn’t know where the body is. Mark says that the women didn’t share anything because they were afraid, and then Jesus appears to Mary, and then she goes and tells others that Jesus is Resurrected. It doesn’t say she went to the disicples between that.
If all of this is to happen at daybreak, then something isn’t adding up for me here. Either Mary/the women are told near daybreak that Jesus is risen, or Mary just thinks the body is gone, goes to get the disicples, they go, leave, and Jesus appears. At which point, she’s not told about the resurrection at daybreak. Matthew and Mark do show Jesus appearing to the women/Mary before she gets to the disicples, whereas John shows that occuring afterwards.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Heather said, “Would that work for everyone, though? Because even 300 hundred years ago, you would have people saying that the Holy Spirit has told them slavery is okay, and they would say the Holy Spirit guided them to the passages justifying that position. Same with the Inquisition — people felt guided into doing that, and accepted that God told them the behavior was right. They were also convinced that anyone who spoke otherwise contradicted the Bible.”
Actually, Heather, it doesn’t work for everyone - in that sense. That’s why Christianity is personal, not political. I can’t speak for those who say they felt guided into doing those things - what they were thinking, but we can be sure, based on the Bible, that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit, by God, to do such things. I think you will agree. I could not possibly presume to say, “The Holy Spirit told me that everyone needs to do this or that, or anything.” The Holy Spirit does not guide me concerning anyone elses actions. Jesus told Peter in John 21, when he asked what John would do, not to be concerned about what John would do, but “Follow thou Me!” Christianity is completely personal. I have great friends who follow Jesus in very different ways than I do. It doesn’t matter…to me. Their following is between them and God. And God is a God of variety. He shows us that in the many, many different flowers, fruit, oh, anything that He made. The biggest problem with a “system” of Christianity, is that it presumes to know God’s will for everyone. That’s why it’s so important for me to hold every new idea or question to Him. I cannot rely on my own understanding of the Bible. And I am certainly not going to rely on someone else’s. Your examples are proof enough of the error in that. The best proof is to know the character of God. He will not go against Himself. I certainly don’t have the answers to all the political issues of today. Who could? There are so many, many complications. But my actions toward others can always be guided by Jesus example. And when an issue needs addressing in my own life, I have access to the answers I need. By putting my trust in God, I am not agreeing with everything anyone has ever done in His name. Far from it. Jesus even warns of them in Luke7:15,16 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing….Ye shall know them by their fruits” Unfortunately, many of these “false prophets” have been considered messengers of God.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Joeyanne,
**The biggest problem with a “system” of Christianity, is that it presumes to know God’s will for everyone. That’s why it’s so important for me to hold every new idea or question to Him. I cannot rely on my own understanding of the Bible. And I am certainly not going to rely on someone else’s.** Regardless of anything else we may disagree on, I think we’re both on the same road with this idea, and that it’s one of the most important. To me, questioning is pivotal, or it would lead to blind obedience. History is full of examples of where blind obedience lead — to use an extreme example, Germany in WWII. Sometimes, those on fire for God can go with an ‘the end justifies the means’ approach. You obey God because you have questioned, and asked Him, and obedience to Him has given you the most peace. You don’t simply obey God “because.” To me, obeying God “just because” can lead to situations where one justifies something like cruelty or hatred. It’s a ‘test the Spirits’ sort of thing.
If it helps, I do know what you’re speaking of. I’ve had moments in reading the Bible, or just moments in general, when this ‘knowing’ came over me. The clarity that gave me the answer.
What does make me leery are those who are so certain of what God wants that they go around making sure everyone else follows — and I’ve seen the Holy Spirit used in that means. There’s a difference between those who say, “God’s on our side,” and “I want to be on the side of God.”
April 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Wow, HIS, what a great post! I think that resurrection was one of many ways of understanding Jesus and there were many ways in turn of understanding resurrection when Christianity developed. April DeConick at the Forbiddengospelsblog is doing some good work on this.
I think we live in an exciting time, a time to reimagine our faith and perhaps even more importantly, our joyful work on Earth.
Blessings,
john
April 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Jim Jordan,
Forgive my intrusion here, but I’ve done a bit of study in these areas. You (or others) may be interested.
Rather than focus on a variety of topics; focus on just one. I wrote a piece on the soldiers at the tombhere. For those that don’t desire to peruse the entire long blog entry, it boils down to this. In Mark the women go to the tomb on Easter morning to add spices to the body of Jesus. (Let us forget, for the moment, that this is not Jewish custom.) What is their largest concern as to the physical ability to do so? Removal of the rock.
But in Matthew we have soldiers placed there specifically to keep people out, and a seal. That, if broken, meant death (or so Christian apologists tell me.) The women aren’t concerned about the soldiers? The Seal?
Look, we can have stories from different perspectives, but that does not mean one story can ignore insurmountable impediments placed in another story. Question—how were the women to get around the soldiers and seal to spice up Jesus? (If you read the blog, there is a great deal more than that, but in shortened version—there it is.)
In all the resurrection accounts that attempt to resolve Barker’s point, I have yet to see this point dealt with.
Hmmm…an Easter Challenge from you? I’ll bite:
Jim Jordan: 1) Would all the apostles who witnessed these sensational events have suffered horribly and given their lives if they knew for certain that this was all a fairy tale?
No idea. DID the apostles and disciples suffer horribly and give their lives? I wrote extensively on this issue here (You all really need to come up with some new arguments.) Can you give me a historical reference that says the Disciples were given an opportunity to recant the tale of a physical resurrection in order to avoid death and did not do so? One? Anywhere? I have looked and cannot find one.
More: 2) Better yet, if their reward was in Heaven, and Heaven was made tangible to them through eyewitness, wouldn’t that explain why they didn’t seek their treasure here on this earth as did Mohammed and Joseph Smith and so many others
Didn’t they? Actually, that is quite interesting, considering the influx of funds that was generated through the early church. I…er…wrote on this one, too, out of curiosity more than anything else here.
Simply put—we have no knowledge as to how much money they generated. But it was enough they did not have to go back to their old occupations and Peter could afford a house.
More: 3) Where is your complaint about these complaints? There are Bible verses that are misrepresented here and numerous omissions that are painted as contradictions.
Ohh.. I would LOVE to get into contradictions/inerrancy. I wrote on that here. (He He He. I’ll bet you are tired of that. I REALLY implore Christians to get some new arguments. These old ones have been re-hashed many times.)
Simply put—what is your method (whether in Christianity or out of it) by which you determine something is a contradiction?
More: 4) While we’re combing the biblical record for inconsistencies, where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the evidence, the proofs for the alternative, more reasonable account that the agnostic and atheist truly believe in?
Good question. The evidence to the contrary is that we see what we expect in humans’ ability to manufacture myth. Let me use two examples in this particular area.
Mark records the Sanhedrin meeting at night. Mark. 14:53. The Sanhedrin would never have met at night. Ever. This would have been contrary to every custom by which we are aware in First Century Palestine. The author of Mark (for many other reasons) was most likely a Gentile, and not familiar with the customs of Judaism. This is a mistake.
For other reasons, I am personally convinced (and admittedly this is a minority opinion) that the author of Matthew was also not a Jew. Or, if he was, he was not familiar with Jewish customs. I would expect a person not familiar with Jewish customs would not be aware of Mark’s faux pas here. Sure enough, what we see is that when Matthew copied Mark, he leaves the Sanhedrin meeting at night. Matt. 26:57. Didn’t know better.
Now my buddy, the author of Luke—THAT person was certainly a Jew—familiar with Jewish customs. S/he comes across this issue in Mark. Are they going to leave the error in place? Nope. Luke subtly moves the trial before the Sanhedrin to its appropriate place—during the day. Luke 24:66
That is what an agnostic/atheist would expect in the development of myth. Inadvertent errors being corrected. Want another? O.K.
Mark has the young man at the tomb tell the women to have the disciples go to Galilee to meet Jesus. Mark 16:7. Matthew, again faithfully following Mark, has the angel at the tomb tell the women that Jesus was going to meet the Disciples in Galilee. Matt. 28:7
Poor Luke. S/he is all anxious to write the Acts of the Apostles, with the church starting in Jerusalem. But Mark (who the author has copying) has left us with the instruction for the Disciples to go to Galilee. Luke needs them back in Jerusalem. So the author subtlety changes the words to “Remember what Jesus told you when he was in Galilee?” Luke 24:6.
Luke is constantly correcting Mark. Exactly what we expect in myth development. I could go through how we see Paul have no parables, sermons, teachings, or miracles of Jesus. How Mark has no birth narrative or resurrection. How Matthew and Luke contradict as to birth and resurrection narrative. How the infancy Gospel of Thomas fill in the details of Jesus’ childhood. How the Gospel of Peter fills in what the women saw at the tomb. How we watch Jesus’ story grow and grow over the first few centuries, and Christianity arbitrarily cut it off at the first 50-75 years of writing.
At least that is this atheist’s alternative prospect. Bet I could convince a neutral jury it is a “more reasonable account.”
More: 5) If the gospels were based on myths then how do you explain its success? The early church grew, many were killed, yet it grew and grew after every persecution.
Depends where you get your history. About the only thing Christianity has to rely upon is Acts for early Church history. Yet when we review the other historians of the era, we do not see the explosion as claimed by Christianity. Josephus fails to mention them at all. Pliny the Younger has to torture Christians just to know what they are about. Tacitus makes a reference that Nero blamed them for a fire. How many did he persecute? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? No clue.
Myths are successful all the time, despite being myths. Look at the one about the Disciples dying for a lie, for example…
April 8th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Wow – There are far too many comments on here for me to directly address. I will do my best with a few though – I better finish off with my comment with JennyPo
JennyPo sez:
“What I don’t see is how it poses a challenge to the Bible on any reasonable or logical basis. Dan Barker, a former minister (presumably, with some education on Biblical subjects) - and this is the best he could come up with?”
JennyPo, the thing about the Barker’s article, is that his argument is just taken directly from Scripture. If you think it poses a no challenge to the Bible on any reasonable or logical basis, then try and take it. Just put the events of the Resurrection in order and don’t leave anything out. You don’t need any editorializing from Barker to realize that this truly is a challenge. I could not do it. It was enough of a challenge to bring me, a committed Christian of over 35 years to really doubt the inerrancy of Scripture.
JennyPo continues:
“HeIsSailing, is it possible that the reason you give people like Barker and Dawkins so much credit is due to the fact that they were “forbidden” to you for so long? Or the fact that they dare to ask questions that are (logical or not) so far over the line of what is acceptable to popular Christianity? They just don’t seem to fit your style.”
I don’t know if I give them any credit. You don’t need Barker’s article to try the Resurrection Challenge. The Scriptures speak for themselves there. The only thing I ever read from Dawkins was ‘The Selfish Gene’ which I read many years ago, and I would hardly call that a challenge to Christianity.
But yes, many of the questions they ask are legitimate are they not? Many of my Christian friends have encouraged me to ask tough questions. They draw the line when the answers do not point back to the God of the Bible. I asked a friend of mine why God would not appear to me to ease the doubt of a Christian like me. If not God, then why not an angel? You should have seen the look on her face – what kind of question is THAT?? Of course the question sounds absurd, but it is a reasonable question to me. Too bad the answers don’t exactly make God look good. Sure, it is not exactly easy for me to accept either, but there you go.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Jim Jordan sez:
“Perhaps you should have done a “challenge” of the challenge!”
Jim, you make it sound like I wrote the article. I took the challenge independently, don’t worry. Here is what I came up with:
After Joseph has placed Jesus’s body in a tomb and sealed it with a stone, some number of women found the stone rolled away on Sunday morning. They enter the tomb and see young men or angels somewhere in the vicinity. The women are shown where Jesus was laid and mention that he was resurrected. They are then given a message to relay to the disciples in Matt, Mark and Luke. This is the spot where the Gospels start to diverge, and oddly enough, this is the presumed original ending of Mark. If the scholars are correct and Mark ends at verse 8, it just makes sense to me that Matt, Mark and John, being left with nothing to work with after Mark 16:8, and each working independently of each other, start relying on oral tradition to finish their Resurrection accounts. I tried putting them in order, and I could not do it. Not even with my most creative use of Harmonization by Omission.
Jim sez:
“Actually, Matthew concurs with the other gospels. The women were coming to the tomb. The angel descended and opened the tomb and sat on the rock. Now had the women arrived BEFORE the rock was rolled away, would they have not seen Jesus? Does it mention a sighting of Jesus? No. The logical reading is: women are on their way, the rock is rolled aside, women arrive.”
Why would they necessarily have seen Jesus before the stone rolled away? Your reading is not at all logical to me.
Verse 1: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Verse 2: And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
If the women did not see the angels come down, whom did Matthew interview to write his Resurrection account? The passed out Roman Soldiers? Did Matthew rely on pure inspiration of the Holy Spirit since there were no witnesses? If so, then why not write about the actual Resurrection of Jesus, rather than the aftermath? No, this reads pretty logically to me just in the order it is written. Women arrive – great earthquake – angle of the Lord descending and rolling back the stone. The only reason there is to rearrange that is because you have to.
I could go on, but let’s look at your challenge:
Challenge 1) Would all the apostles who witnessed these sensational events have suffered horribly and given their lives if they knew for certain that this was all a fairy tale? They had to know for sure one way or the other, no?
You know, I have heard this for years. I have used this line on people when witnessing. But consider Jim Jones, of the Jonestown cult. He proclaimed himself Messiah, became a faith healer and walked on water. Yup, or so his followers claimed. You know how many eyewitnesses to his great wonders willingly killed themselves at his direction? 913. This number pales in comparison to 12 disciples, a few women and maybe a couple more followers.
Now I will ask you the same question you asked me – apply it to Jim Jones: Would all the disciples of Jim Jones who witnessed these sensational events have given their lives if they knew for certain that this was all a fairy tale? They had to know for sure one way or the other, no?
Even if Jesus’ disciples were martyred, their martyrdom was nothing unique. Which brings up my second issue – how do you know the 12 apostles or Gospel authors were martyred? What sources do you have? The common notion of Peter being crucified upside down comes from the apocryphal book Acts of Peter. Have you ever read that book? It is pretty hilarious – it pits a magical showdown between Peter and Simon Magus, each doing a magic tricks that successively outdoes the other. Peter is able to make dogs talk, and they both fly through the air zapping each other. The Acts of Peter does not sound like a reliable source to me. Why does the church accept Peter’s martyrdom story from the Acts of Peter, while simultaneously dismissing the The Acts of Peter as not credible? Matthew has enough martyrdom stories to have died practically anywhere in the Roman Empire. As far as I know, the rest of the Gospel writers’ fate is detailed in non-canonical books, some which were written centuries after the fact.
Challenge 2: Better yet, if their reward was in Heaven, and Heaven was made tangible to them through eyewitness, wouldn’t that explain why they didn’t seek their treasure here on this earth as did Mohammed and Joseph Smith and so many others?
As I read the Gospels, Jesus taught his immanent return (Matt 23:36, Matt 24:34). Albert Schweitzer thought so also, as have many scholars. Even if Jesus did not teach that, his disciples certainly thought he did.
Challenge 3: Where is your complaint about these complaints? There are Bible verses that are misrepresented here and numerous omissions that are painted as contradictions.
I did not write the article. As I said, I took the Challenge myself, and could not do it. Why don’t you try?
Challenge 4: While we’re combing the biblical record for inconsistencies, where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the evidence, the proofs for the alternative, more reasonable account that the agnostic and atheist truly believe in?
I don’t speak for the agnostic/atheist position, I am only reading the Bible and considering alternatives that I think are more reasonable. I have no proof for anything, but I can only look at what seems most likely. Right now, it seems more likely that Mark ended his account at verse 8, at the exact point where the other Gospels really diverge in their stories. Then they all rely on oral tradition from there. THAT makes sense to me, rather than assuming and contriving and twisting the Bible text to say things that it does not say. Have you ever seen my article ‘Harmonization by Omission’? I go over the two death scenarios of Judas in fair detail and explain why I think relying on oral tradition to solve the contradictions is the most likely and most reasonable.
Challenge 5: If the gospels were based on myths then how do you explain its success? The early church grew, many were killed, yet it grew and grew after every persecution. Studying the early church gives us the impression that something supernatural was at work there. Islam was spread by the sword (still is) but Christianity had nothing to defend its first 280 years…unless a living Lord was nurturing it….
I don’t know. I would say that persecution had something to do with it. People fight back after persecution, and become more galvanized. Do you think Jews are going to give up their religion any time soon? I also think an analogy to Joseph Smith and his band of Mormons being chased all around the country would apply here. I still say that Mormonism is far more successful after about 180 years of existence than Christianity was after 180 years of existence. But maybe that is a trick of the devil.
I don’t know for certain on any of these issues, Jim. But I think there are plenty of more reasonable scenarios than taking The Biblical account at face value, and there is no appeal to Divine Intervention.
Phew – it is getting late.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Heather took the Resurrection Challenge and said:
“If all of this is to happen at daybreak, then something isn’t adding up for me here. Either Mary/the women are told near daybreak that Jesus is risen, or Mary just thinks the body is gone, goes to get the disicples, they go, leave, and Jesus appears. At which point, she’s not told about the resurrection at daybreak. Matthew and Mark do show Jesus appearing to the women/Mary before she gets to the disicples, whereas John shows that occuring afterwards. ”
Thanks for trying Heather. You quit at about the same point I did. It get really hairy when Jesus starts to appear to the disciples.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
JennyPo sez:
“Are you sure that a spiritual body is NOT a physical body?”
I am pretty sure. Later in 1 Cor 15, Paul says this:
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,”
I mean, he is talking about natural as in flesh and blood. That is not a spiritual body. Much of the debate concerning Spiritual versus Physical bodies can be found in the book of 2 Enoch. Yes, it is non-canonical, but it at least details the thinking of the Jewish community at the time. Physical and Spiritual were distinct from each other as far as I can tell.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Time for one more:
Joeyanne sez:
“Moses only had what God physically told him. He had to rely on the details God gave him for everything. We have the Holy Spirit who reveals things to us - things that may not seem so clear at first. This is wayyy better than what Moses had.”
Are you sure the Holy Spirit revealing anything to us is way better than a detailed list of instructions from the Finger of God? Left to fend for ourselves and divine the message of the Holy Spirit, we have cooked up countless numbers of Christian denominations, many with their own ideas of what Salvation means and how to attain it. Because the Bible and the Holy Spirit’s direction is far from clear.
I remember a message from the Pulpit concerning the Urim the Thummim, those old testament divining stones that gave people answers in the form of Yes and No. They were endorsed by God, and included as part of Aaron’s vestment, placed directly over his heart. Now what was God doing endorsing divining stones? Well, says my Pastor, that was the way God spoke to people before the Holy Spirit came around. You ask God a question, roll the stones and get a Yes or No. We don’t use them anymore, because we have something better – The Holy Spirit! I remember thinking at the time, I WISH I HAD AN URIM AND THUMMIM!!!! Because at least you get a direct answer with that. Try asking God a question about anything that requires a Yes or No. Your guess is as good as mine as to how to determine God’s answer using the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
HeIsSailing sez:
“But yes, many of the questions they ask are legitimate are they not? Many of my Christian friends have encouraged me to ask tough questions.”
Truthfully, I don’t find much in this line of questioning either legit or tough. Most of the “questions” asked are twistings in wording or involve assumptions that are hardly even intelligent. I can’t relate. I have seriously questioned the existence of God and the validity of Christianity, but never on the basis of reasoning like this. I believe that the reason this kind of “challenge” sends many Christians reeling is not because it is reasonable, but because most of “Christianity” maintains itself by living in a sealed capsule, indulging in either gross ignorance or similar wordtwists, or both.
To be fair, I do believe you see this as legit. And I know it is hard to know the difference sometimes between what the words say and what we’ve been taught to believe they mean.
I don’t have time tonight, but I will take this challenge.
HeIsSailing, just so you know, God does tell me “yes” and “no” and a whole lot more. But he never, never tells me anything that contradicts the Bible.
Although he is perfectly clear, you are right that not communicating with us through the senses means that it’s not simple. There’s a lot that can get in the way. But yes, it’s better. Way better. The Israelites knew an Almighty God - but their Almighty God is Father to me.
He promised, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:13) Maybe you will see an angel. Or maybe you will have an even surer knowledge. If you really believe a vision would settle things for you, there’s nothing wrong with asking. Either way, if God reveals himself to you, it will be clear. Clearer than the urim and the thummim.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:39 am
**Truthfully, I don’t find much in this line of questioning either legit or tough. **
Honestly, I just do not understand how this is not legit. Nor do I understand how it is not tough. It is using the Bible’s own words. That should make it legit. People are not coming up with legitimate answers. That seems to make it tough.
**Most of the “questions” asked are twistings in wording or involve assumptions that are hardly even intelligent.**
I also don’t understand how this is not intelligent. You seem to be very dismissive of this without actually saying why it should be dismissed. If the Bible is God’s Word, then the accounts should be reliable and they should match up. If they do not, then that seems to present a problem.
**HeIsSailing, just so you know, God does tell me “yes” and “no” and a whole lot more. But he never, never tells me anything that contradicts the Bible.**
I don’t mean to sound rude, but could you please explain how God speaks to you? Is this an audible thing, or is it a feeling, or is it something else? I am just curious.
**He promised, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:13) **
I can’t speak for HIS for sure on this one, but this is true for me and there is a good chance it is true for him as well. Verses like this actually just add to our doubts. We do genuinely seek God with all of our hearts. If He promised that this would lead us to Him, why aren’t we finding Him? We’re trying to do our part.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:27 am
JennyPo sez:
“Truthfully, I don’t find much in this line of questioning either legit or tough. Most of the “questions” asked are twistings in wording or involve assumptions that are hardly even intelligent. ”
JennyPo, I am afraid I am with JfC here. There is no line of questioning, word twisting or anything else that The Resurrection Challenge involves. Just take the The Resurrection accounts in the Four Gospels and 1 Cor 15, and tell what happened without leaving anything out. That’s it. It is legitimate.
And all I am saying is, I could not do it without falling into serious contradictions. Events clash drastically after the women leave the tomb.
Scroll up and look at Heather’s attempt. She tried, and hers is a bit of a mess. She had to quit.
Paul sez that God is not the author of confusion, but of peace 1 Cor 14:30. This is very confusing to me. Is this the Word of God or not? I believed in an infallable and inerrant Bible for all my life, so this is not something I am throwing around trying to stir trouble. This is a legitimate issue with me. It is legitmate enought, that these Resurrection accounts, along with many other contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible make me really doubt its inerrancy, infallability or authority.
JennyPo sez:
“He promised, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”
Yes, he has promised that. And I am feverishly seeking him. Don’t think that a lot of prayer, tears and frustration have not gone into this. Not to mention more Bible Study then I have ever done in my life. I don’t need proof, I really don’t. Just something that makes sense is all I ask.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:49 am
**Scroll up and look at Heather’s attempt. She tried, and hers is a bit of a mess.** That’s putting it mildly.
I was running into problems when I was trying to put all the angels/messengers in their location. The women ended up receiving the message two or three times, which didn’t fit because each was phrased as if it were the first and only time the women learned of the resurrection.
**If the Bible is God’s Word, then the accounts should be reliable and they should match up. If they do not, then that seems to present a problem.** Or at least, there shouldn’t be so much room for questioning. Many of these can be harmonized when pulled out of the texts, like how many angels or messengers there were. One can say that one covers the angel outside while another covers the angel/young man/men inside. But when I started placing everything that happened in chronological order, including what was said and who was standing where when it was said, it got messy. As I said above, given how the messages are delivered, it looks as though each were a one-time only event. It gets even more complex when John’s account is thrown in.
My thing with putting the events in chronological orders is that I don’t think we’d accept this as inerrent truth if we were trying to do this with any other text. If another text posed this much difficulty and required this much harmonization by omission, wouldn’t we then decide that the text was in not fact inerrant or infallible?
April 9th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I read the whole thing (even the resurrection challenge) and I have come to a few conclusions on this whole thing - which I find a very in-depth issue (thanks for raising it HIS).
I think the problem with harmonizing the gospels and Paul’s stuff is the historical context - they are ’stand alone’ books in their respective communities (not as we see in the current NT we have; or for that matter the Tanakh we have). Reason this has to be true is the books are not doctored to look exactly alike (which could have been done if someone had them all at once). There were some later additions when they all exist ’side by side’ (for example Mark’s ending) - which seems to be Mark’s first problem. However, the point is the arguement to harmonize them all (ie: resurrection challenge) is not one that makes much sense to me.
I also think the apologist is making a case for a variety of books that isn’t being made by the books themselves. The books are not at all concerned with ‘harmony’ because they are not copied verbatim one from another (as is slightly being assumed by the biblical lit community)…so trying to make them totally line-up will not happen because they don’t have to (that is not a pre-requisite for the writer’s). Does it make the resurrection story less believable? It shouldn’t.
Is the books lining up the the point of the writer’s? No. If they don’t does that make them less believable? No. The point of each gospel is the teachings of Jesus, his death, and resurrection (and this from the disciples perspective). The point is the story (values) that we can gain from these writings - and even the resurrection plays into the ‘hope’ of the faith (or assurance). To look deeper into this is to ask something the writer is not trying to answer. Ex: How is it even possible a resurrection happened? If you ‘ask did it happen’ - well not a single writer denies that fact.
Here is what we do know - Jesus lived, Jesus taught, Jesus died, and he resurrected. Getting picky on the details is something comparable to ‘making things up’ as well. I think some of the questions you ask are great - but they will never be answered by the gospel accounts - since the gospel accounts were not written to make sure they fit through a 21st century test (a test that would make no sense to that generation).
But, If all you had was one account and compared it with the manuscripts of that one account (ex: Matthew) - how much do you think that will vary over time? It doesn’t. So the books are fairly consistent in that sense and that’s all we can ask of them. To ask of them absolute harmony is a farce and comes from an over-intellectualized idea about these books.
But in the end, does your faith hinge upon the amount of percieved mistake that can be found or the story as told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John (oe even Paul)? What seems to be overlooked here is the ardent belief these Jewish people held prior to their conversion to Christ - they then follow someone who they call ‘messiah’ - which was tantamount to blasphemy in their days (so they all put their life on the lines). But they left a religion they were so rooted in for someone they claim is the Christ/Messiah? Why?
April 9th, 2007 at 9:21 am
**since the gospel accounts were not written to make sure they fit through a 21st century test**
I think I probably agree with you here, but that really does not help us out. If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then why the mix-ups? If it’s a bunch of accounts written by (uninspired) humans, for other humans of their generation, then I can understand the discrepancies. But if they are written by inspired humans for all the humans that will ever live. . . and if they deal with the single most important event in the history of the world and mankind’s salvation depends on it. . . then they all better be accurate.
**If you ‘ask did it happen’ - well not a single writer denies that fact.**
Not a single one of those writers denied it. But they obviously didn’t even have all the details correct, so they got some bad info/ made up some bad info somewhere. Why should we assume that they are right about the resurrection when they can’t get the rest of the story itself correct?
**But they left a religion they were so rooted in for someone they claim is the Christ/Messiah? Why?**
But so many Jews were not persuaded to leave their religion for someone that was claimed to be the Messiah (and he performed miracles, darkness came over the land for three hours during his crucifixion, the temple curtain ripped from top to bottom at his death, AND he even was raised from the dead!!). Why not?
April 9th, 2007 at 9:46 am
societyvs: Here is what we do know - Jesus lived,…
Actually there is a bit of controversy over that subject. Although at its base, the vast predominance are convinced that someone lived, as to when, where, and how—it is open to vast debate.
More: …Jesus taught…
O.K.—but what? That we should follow Mosaic law? That he was the Messiah? That he was a prophet? That he was the Son of God? That he was returning in a few years? In a few millennium? That the moon was made of blue cheese? Simply saying “he taught” is not very helpful, nor does it provide us with any information.
Every human teaches.
More: …Jesus died…
Yep. If he lived…he died.
More: … and he resurrected …
But isn’t that the $64,000 question? I, for one, do not know that. I am in the constant process of investigating it. I would like to “know” it. But merely asserting we all “know” it does not progress us any in the investigation. Aren’t we to inspect what we know to see if it can hold water?
More: Getting picky on the details is something comparable to ‘making things up’ as well.
Uh-oh. Whenever I hear someone that doesn’t want to look at the details, I am certain that the details are going to trip up the story. So are they. Hence the reason to not look at the details!
societyvs—it is ALWAYS the details in which we can start to rightly divide truth. What type of God doesn’t want us to look at details? This is like saying “We know JFK was shot, but let’s not look at the details.” It is within those details that anomalies appear. Human anomalies. Anomalies that cause us to question whether it was a human effort in the first place.
This is the key—the most significant event in the entire 13 Billion years of history—and you don’t think we should look at details? What ARE we supposed to look at, then? Some broad claim and never inspect for ourselves?
More: I think some of the questions you ask are great - but they will never be answered by the gospel accounts - since the gospel accounts were not written to make sure they fit through a 21st century test (a test that would make no sense to that generation).
Here I agree with you. They were NOT written as trial testimony. They were written as myth to bolster the belief of certain communities. How…er…does this help a Christian’s claim that it really happened?
First the claim is made that there is some historical basis for the resurrection, based upon the Gospels. So, a skeptic (me) starts to look at that claim. I am told to NOT. That I shouldn’t inspect the details.
Then, while I am scratching my head, I am informed that these were not written as historical accounts. O.K. If they were not written as historical accounts, and I cannot inspect them as if they were historical accounts—how does this support any allegation they is any history within?
More: But, If all you had was one account and compared it with the manuscripts of that one account (ex: Matthew) - how much do you think that will vary over time? It doesn’t.
If you are talking solely the account of resurrection, I haven’t reviewed the textual criticism of the various accounts. I would be stunned, though, to find there were no variances in the manuscripts of individual books. Do you have anything to support this? I am curious…
The problem being, societyvs, is that we don’t have just one book. I agree that would help Christianity out quite a bit—if we could lop off Mark, Luke and John. Or Matthew, Luke and John. Or Matthew, Mark and John. It isn’t me that picked these books—it is the people who are claiming the events contained within actually happened.
Again, by virtue of focusing on just one account, it seems the person realizes that the other accounts DO disagree and undercut their position. Otherwise they would never ask me to focus on just one account.
If the books were initially intended to stand on their own—this hurts the position. Matthew was aware of Mark. If the author intended his book to supplant Mark, not just support it, then the author was correcting Mark. Making the best argument that Mark is incorrect the fact that Matthew (closer to the time than we are) thought Mark was incorrect. If Luke was correcting Mark (and Matthew) then Luke makes the strongest argument, due to his ability to observe, that Matthew and Mark incorrectly recorded the events of the resurrection. If John, written the latest, was written to stand on its own, and not be in conjunction with the others, then the best argument that the others are wrong is John. But we also have the strong argument from Matthew that John is wrong…and so on.
We have various accounts. We can compare them. To ask we do not do so undercuts any historicity in the claim altogether.
More: To ask of them absolute harmony is a farce and comes from an over-intellectualized idea about these books.
I agree. All I was looking for was “close.” Among humans we expect some variances. We expect some errors. We expect some disagreement when re-telling a story. Is it wrong for me to expect just a teensy bit better from a divine writing? Or are you saying that the Bible is no better and no worse than any other human effort? In which case it is equally no more or less likely to be divine.
More: What seems to be overlooked here is the ardent belief these Jewish people held prior to their conversion to Christ - they then follow someone who they call ‘messiah’ - which was tantamount to blasphemy in their days
Most certainly was not. It was not blasphemy to declare oneself as the “Messiah” (since to a Jew, doing so was not equal to God, nor was it cursing God). It was even less blasphemous than not blasphemous at all, to follow a person who claimed to be the Messiah.
Where did you read this?
April 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am
“This is the key—the most significant event in the entire 13 Billion years of history—and you don’t think we should look at details? What ARE we supposed to look at, then? Some broad claim and never inspect for ourselves?” (Dagoods)
I think looking at the details of 4 books from 4 various authors in 4 various regions and trying to build the historical case from that is a little absurd. It seems people are getting extremely picky in the process and I don’t think the authors set that as the basis for proof they were being honest (’oh and by the way - can you check my work to this other dudes and that other dudes work so we can see if I am right’?).
I am not saying ‘don’t look at the details’ but I also see some dis-honesty in that process by people trying to harmonize it all and comin up with ‘they don’t fit - so it’s not true’. Some inconsistency in the re-telling of the story and the story is not true anymore (and this from 4 various authors). I almost expect some inconsistency on that level. But I see no outright denials from a single Christian writer yet the stories aren’t perfect so they all must be deluded on their belief in the resurrection. So is perfection the rule we have to follow when I read these authors?
“First the claim is made that there is some historical basis for the resurrection, based upon the Gospels. So, a skeptic (me) starts to look at that claim. I am told to NOT. That I shouldn’t inspect the details.” (Dagoods)
Firstly, I never said ‘don’t check the details’ - since I check the details also. What I proposed is that in the comparison of the 4 gospels - they are individual authors and it seems the purpose is to tell the story about Jesus (which includes the resurrection). Is it made up? How can we know this for a certainty? Well unless we get a ‘body’ of some sort to shut this whole nonsense down then I think the perusal over the 4 gospels and comparing them is pointless. Those 4 gospels all claim Jesus rose from the dead - and getting lost in the details is a fun exercise but it’s in-consequential.
“I would be stunned, though, to find there were no variances in the manuscripts of individual books. Do you have anything to support this? I am curious…” (Dagoods)
First off, I have the bible (I use NASB) - which in and of itself has been quite the process of textual critcism and decided on by a variety of theological backgrounds (re-checked by a variety of authors for textual varients). I have looked into some of this (with the NIV) and I must admit the process is done quite thoroughly. But I will check into this further.
It’s not that Matthew doesn’t have any single variation in the 100’s of manuscripts - it’s that the variants don’t change a single essence/meaning of any story and I yet to see this is in anyone’s works - including Ehrmann’s.
“Again, by virtue of focusing on just one account, it seems the person realizes that the other accounts DO disagree and undercut their position. Otherwise they would never ask me to focus on just one account.” (Dagoods)
I have no problem with this (variances in the stories) and I still hold firmly the resurrection did happen. I admit the accounts are not copies of one another and they were written to various communities. So they have some variances in the stories…I don’t quite get the problem in that.
Your points about Matt, Mark, Luke, and John is one that is based on the theories proposed since the 18th century - on which there is no actual concensus yet. It is supposed Mark was before Matthew, that Luke was after so and so, and John last (which some of this makes sense)…again on this we have very little proof. Why would John be last again? I thought his was the oldest piece of manuscript we do have? Why is Mark the original and not Matthew? How can we be dead sure Luke is a copy - wth all the extra parables he contains? I mean question after question on this will continue to arise - so to debate it will get us nowhere since we would be debating conjecture and hypothesis. Who’s to say we will actually agree on the right or correct theory?
“We have various accounts. We can compare them.” (Dagoods)
And you do..what’s the conclusion? Luke disagreed with Mark, Mark with Matthew, and John with all of them. But not a single one even hints the actual resurrection idea is a ‘myth’ (yet you feel comfortable in that assertion)…”They were written as myth to bolster the belief of certain communities”.
On what basis does your claim actually rest - the gospel accounts aren’t so clear-cut, that you have never seen it actually occur, it’s not humanly possible, etc? I agree there is discrepencies in the events surrounding the actual day of the resurrection (and at that small ones) - again from 4 varying authors - however, in those 4 accounts the resurrection is always seen as something that ‘did occur’. Even Paul says it happened (and he wasn’t even there) - so someone had to have told him. I believe in the resurrection - would you say ‘blindly’?
“Is it wrong for me to expect just a teensy bit better from a divine writing? Or are you saying that the Bible is no better and no worse than any other human effort? In which case it is equally no more or less likely to be divine.” (Dagoods)
Expect what you figure it should be for it to meet some ‘divine condition’ - where you get that expectation from is also in question then too. I would say the the NT is a mixture of 29 books, various authors, from various regions, making various points, and does not have to line up 100% to find validity (anyone that thinks this is not handling any sort of context very well - historical, cultural, or literary). I think it’s the word of God still in that the writer’s of the gospels try to relate the ideas and teachings of Jesus (who claims to have a close relationship with God). Is it without ‘error’ - that depends on what ‘error’ now means - but obviously Mark has ‘additons’ to it (and John
- but even Christianity doesn’t hide this fact. I see the biblical translators quite honest.
“It was not blasphemy to declare oneself as the “Messiah”” (Dagoods)
I didn’t say it was ‘blasphemy’ but quite similar. The disciples claim Jesus is the messiah (that’s how we know that actual claim) and they were not liked by their own communities for that idea (as they also mention Jesus was not). They are kicked out of synagogues and their whole way of life is changed - so much so they are killed for holding that belief. What was the penalty for blasphemy? death.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
**I think looking at the details of 4 books from 4 various authors in 4 various regions and trying to build the historical case from that is a little absurd.**
So it was 4 authors writing to different regions in their own time. If this is the case, why are we expected to trust it for our own salvation 2000 years later? Your case here makes it sound like the Gospels are a bunch of stories written down by humans without any divine guidance.
I still don’t see how it doesn’t bother you, either. If details of an event are insignificant to these writers, why did they write them down? How do we know to trust the “big story” of the resurrection, but we don’t have to trust the details that explain the circumstances? The details themselves are how we “know” Christ was resurrected. Some (1/2/3/more) women (and Peter/other disciple) went to the tomb. . . he wasn’t there. The women saw (1/2) angels or (1/2) men at the tomb. Later, Jesus appeared to (a number of) disciples (at a mountain in Galilee/ in Emmaus/ in a room) to prove that he had risen. Then he ascended into heaven (the day he appeared to the disciples/ at least 8 days/ at least 40 days). You see, these very details are what lead us to believe Christ rose from the dead. If the details (that lead us to believe a resurrection occurred) cannot be trusted, the conclusion (Jesus was resurrected) cannot be trusted.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Wow, you guys work fast and furiously. It took me a while to find HeIssSailing’s answer to my challenge.
I could go on, but let’s look at your challenge:
Challenge 1) Explain apostles’ behavior.
You referenced Jim Jones and his role in causing 913 people to kill thmeselves. First, there is an obvious mistake. Had Jim Jones died brutally, then come back from the dead, and said “follow me” then you might have a point. The eyewitness testimony is serious stumbling block for anyone who wants to claim the gospels are fiction. There simply is NOTHING in history to compare it to. this is what so many highly intellectual people have concluded, such as Simon Greenleaf. Comparing 913 to 12 is irrelevant because the Jones case and the Jesus case are apples to oranges.
**Which brings up my second issue – how do you know the 12 apostles or Gospel authors were martyred?**
The writings of the early church are in the religious interests section at Barnes and Noble.
Challenge 2: Apostles’ belief in Heaven incorruptible.
You said that the apostles merely expected Jesus to return imminently. Like when, before the axe falls or a few seconds after?
Challenge 3: The “Challenge” is skewed and has many errors.
You said, “I did not write the article. As I said, I took the Challenge myself, and could not do it. Why don’t you try?”
I took the challenge and I found it saying, “try making an accurate chronological order of events. And, if you can’t, then it didn’t happen.” That’s preposterous. I have trouble putting my own childhood events in chronological order, but I know I had a childhood!
This challenge reminded me of the Wendy’s commercial where a guy says to his girlfriend, “My buddy and I were on our way to Wendy’s to get a 99 cent Spicy Chicken Sandwich when a unicorn stopped in front of his car. We got out and scared him off.”
“Wait a minute!” says the girlfriend. “Wendy’s has a 99 cent Spicy Chicken Sandwich?”
The moral is not how perfectly you can put the pieces together, but do you see the picture?
Challenge 4: I said **While we’re combing the biblical record for inconsistencies, where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the evidence, the proofs for the alternative, more reasonable account that the agnostic and atheist truly believe in?**
You said **I don’t speak for the agnostic/atheist position, I am only reading the Bible and considering alternatives that I think are more reasonable. I have no proof for anything, but I can only look at what seems most likely. **
This is bloggerese for “I’m not an agnostic/atheist, I just play one on TV”?
**I go over the two death scenarios of Judas in fair detail and explain why I think relying on oral tradition to solve the contradictions is the most likely and most reasonable.**
That’s fine. One says his guts fell out and I think the other says he hung himself. Of course, we could speculate that he hung himself and then his guts popped out. But you see this gets kind of silly quickly.
Challenge 5: **If the gospels were based on myths then how do you explain its success? The early church grew, many were killed, yet it grew and grew after every persecution. Studying the early church gives us the impression that something supernatural was at work there. Islam was spread by the sword (still is) but Christianity had nothing to defend its first 280 years…unless a living Lord was nurturing it….**
You said***I don’t know. I would say that persecution had something to do with it. People fight back after persecution, and become more galvanized.**
And when they are dead? The Jews only number 15 million to this day. Why didn’t they expand? There is a good case for a supernatural hand in the growth of Christianity.
You concluded **I don’t know for certain on any of these issues, Jim. But I think there are plenty of more reasonable scenarios than taking The Biblical account at face value, and there is no appeal to Divine Intervention.**
I believe the problem with the Challenge guy’s view is that he is taking literally certain things and applying them to a chronology meter that perhaps clashes with the medium of the gospel writers. Each century has a slightly different way of reading the Scriptures and getting them wrong.
I don’t always take Scripture at face value. I worry that I might lose a deeper meaning or message in it if I apply a literal litmus test to it. Just looking at John 20 reveals numerous examples. Here’s my homiletic of John 20:1-18:
Verse 1 - Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb before daylight, a sign of sincere eagerness to see to Jesus’ needs, even in death.
Verse 2 - she sees the stone rolled away and believes his body has been stolen. How often we see something unebelievable and think the last thing that could be the cause is God’s will.
Verses 3-6 - Peter and John run toward the tomb, the younger John beating him out, but the “son of thunder” loses his thunder at the entrance to the tomb. He hesitates while Peter goes on by without waiting. How often we pride ourselves on being zealous but it’s the sloppy, slow-footed one that shows his steadfast loyalty at the critical moments. They take the action that we give ample lip service to.
Verse 7 - the description - the only eyewitness description at that time - of the sudarium and the shroud will prove essential in verifying the two strongest pieces of evidence for the resurrection. It has now been affirmed that the blood type on each matches the other and dates from the first century.
Verses 8-9 show the process by which John saw, then believed, then understood. The reality of Jesus came together in his mind at this moment.
Verses 10-13 - The guys leave but Mary stays. She doesn’t want to “wait and see” what happens next. Sobbing, she looks inside the tomb and she sees the angels. Now, there are many references in the Bible of people being allowed to see angels, such as Jacob the night he wrestled with God. The discrepancy in the gospel accounts of how many angels and to whom they appeared is moot. There’s a mystery here that you might get to the bottom of if you could ask an angel…
Verses 14-17 - Jesus appears to Mary who thought he was the gardener which is a rational thought being the first day of the work week. It’s not until he says her name that she realizes it’s Jesus. He appears in our darkest hour when we are totally helpless to meet that need and answer our most difficult questions.
Verse 18 - Mary does what any sane person would, she goes back to the disciples saying “I have seen the Lord!” That’s not unlike what we are called to do when we feel a relentless passion for Jesus Christ.
That’s only the superficial things I glean from John 20:1-18. It’s interesting to note that John’s gospel has the most eyewitness testimony;the crucifixion and the tomb.
If the Bible was just a text then it could be judged errant by the skeptic. At that point errancy becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn’t it? It begins to fail miserably as a way for us to know God. But the Bible is not just a text. It is like an interactive video game that triggers in our minds some understanding where we must go to satisfy the longing that is in us.
April 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Wow. I can certainly say that only a 2000 year old book isn’t what convinces me of the ressurection. So, your conclusion is that the ressurection didn’t occur? What is the bigger question here? Can I trust God? Is the Bible His Word? If not, how can I be certain of what He is saying? Maybe any or all of these questions. Proving the ressurection happened may help, but it won’t answer these questions for you. Don’t get side-tracked by issues that aren’t the root issue. I’m not saying to just accept without question everything you hear, but you have to have some starting point. And I don’t think answering this question is going to give you that. You have to go back farther.
April 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
societyvs,
You said, “So they have some variances in the stories…I don’t quite get the problem in that.” Let me approach a little differently to, perhaps, give you a bit more flavor to that.
We both agree (I think) that a resurrection of a dead person is an extraordinary claim. A self-resurrection is an extremely extraordinary claim. Unique, even. For a unique claim of this monumental proportion, we would desire independent witnesses. Witnesses opposed to the proposition would be even better, but at least independent witnesses.
We don’t have that. The only witnesses we have are “insiders.” Christians. People that, by the time they are telling us about the resurrection, already are firmly convinced it happened.
Worse, Jesus promised a sign to that generation, and then didn’t deliver it. The only people he appeared to were those who had already proclaimed his Messiahship, at the least.
The fact that our only source of information is from biased sources gives us the first reason to pause.
Secondly, if we are stuck with “insider” information, at least we would hope for the best evidence we could get. We would want the actual people who witnessed the event. If not them, someone they told. If not them, someone who heard it from someone who heard it from witnesses. In other words, we want the description from as close as possible.
But what do we have? Paul, who at best got it second hand. Mark, who, equally at best, got it second hand, but possibly made it up. Matthew, who we don’t have a clue as to where he/she obtained the information. Luke, same problem (although arguably would attempt to get as close as possible). The best you could hope for is John, but considering all the numerous contradictions between that gospel and the synoptics, was not written by the Disciple John.
So, as to authorship, we have one possible witness (John), three possible second-hand, Paul, Mark and Luke, and realistically, four completely indeterminate how many people the information passed through—Paul, Mark, Matthew and Luke.
Thirdly, we would like it as close to the time as possible. The longer the time, the greater likelihood of people’s memory failing, or myth developing, or the story modifying. We have Paul, say 20 years after the event. More than enough time for these types of modifiers to enter the equation. Then Mark, at best 35 years after the event. Than Matthew and Luke, maybe 45 years after the event, and John 65 years after the event. At best.
We fear that as time develops, myth and sophistication would enter the process. Not ironically, that is exactly what we see between Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and then John.
Fourthly, we would like to see if the witnesses are quest