Julio

Matthew 28:17.
Three astonishing inspired words to describe the entire delusion.
Later in the centuries, it would compute into many MILLIONS who would doubt the choreography
presented in “The Passion” [the greatest farce ever to hit this planet!].
Who were those disciples who doubted?
Why did they doubt?
What happened to them after they doubted?
Remember that Matthew ends “officially” with those disconcerting words [the next three verses were inserted later].

Amaleq13

The author(s) of John indicates "many" disciples didn't believe even before the crucifixion/resurrection:

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (Jn 6:66, KJV)

Are the authors relating what they believed actually happened or retrojecting what they were seeing in their own communities at the time they wrote?

spamandham

The latter of course...as we would expect to be the case universally with such texts.

Self-Mutation

They doubted because it was an Earth shattering experience for them. Imagine having the limited knowledge of 2,000 years ago and learning that GOD HIMSELF, the creator of the universe, IN THE FLESH, is standing right next to you on Planet Earth.

It's not something you see every day. The Bible does not tell us what the fate of those disciples was but I imagine God allowed them entry into Heaven because it was honest shock value type of doubt.

Today's doubt, with all the knowledge we have about the Bible and how it has withstood the test of time, is really inexcusable.

Toto

If they saw it, why did they not believe? Perhaps G-d hardened their hearts?

Au contraire, the Bible says they must be burning in Hell.

This is not what people who have actually studied the Bible have concluded.

Please be serious.

wavy_wonder1

I wonder of 'dissimilarity' would apply here. The text specifies only the 12 (or 11), so it was obviously some of that group who doubted. But would a later author portray the original disciples themselves this way at the denouement of the story?

I'm inclined to say no. There may be some historical truth behind this.


Finis,
ELB

Julio

"Some" of the group of 11 must have been at least three. But we don't have anything in the NT written by 6 or 7 of the apostles.
Could they write, or did they leave the "Apostolic College" after the "Ascension" farce?
The fact that their names are not mentioned is an indication of the "shame" Matthew felt for them, or to hide some later disagreement that resulted in the quotation about them in that verse.
Hermeneutically I "battle" a lot with this passage.
There are some references in the gospels about disagreements between the disciples, which could have been fermenting until this point in the saga.
I don't know. I need some help, here.

wavy_wonder1

I have an admittedly conjectural hunch that this could be evidence for some of the apostles going renegade. Perhaps they relinquished their faith, thus rebutting the romantic claims of some that they all went smiling to their executions for what they 'saw' after Jesus's death and proving that the post-resurrection appearances were probably more hearsay than anything else. The gospels can't even agree on the location of Jesus' initial post-resurrection appearances.

Naturally the fact that some of the apostles 'doubted' wouldn't be popular as the new religion spread and would ultimately fall ignored, surviving only as clues such as this one in the gospels. I always take Mk vi.14-29 as gospel proof of how quickly unstaunched, stubborn rumors can spread.


Finis,
ELB

gdeering

Actually come to think of it, a walk with a god would have seemed perfectly acceptable in both Hellenic and Hebraic culture. No problem. Apologetic denied.

GD

JoeWallack

JW:
What I find instructive here is the relationship between the
d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e from the supposed resurrection and belief in it by the disciples and the d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e between the related claim of a Gospel and its original source "Mark".

We can be certain that there was no historical witness to the resurrection so that can be eliminated as a possible source for subsequent Gospel claims. The most likely source than would be previous written Gospels themselves.

Note that as time goes by between Gospels, the d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e shortens from the resurrection to belief in it by the Disciples:

"Mark" (original source):

Mark 16:8

Here we have the maximum d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e in custoMary extreme Markan style. There is no belief in the resurrection by the Disciples.

"Matthew" (next)

Matthew 28

Here the d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e has been greatly reduced from infinity but is still significant, Jerusalem to Galilee.

"Luke" (next)

Luke 24

Now most of the d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e has been exorcised and belief is now in Jerusalem itself. Almost there.

"John" (last)

John 20

And now the d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e has been minimized as disciple belief is at the place of the resurrection.

Is this relationship of decreasing d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e from infinity to nothing reMarkable? Not at all, it's exactly what we would expect from theological writings with no historical witness for a source.

"Mark", as the originator of the narrative, is the only one who knows that there is no historical source. Therefore his narrative makes no claim of historical witness to the resurrection. Subsequent Gospels (mis)take "Mark" as historical witness and External pressure gradually reduces the distance from claim of resurrection to claim of historical witness to it.




Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page