Adam

That was my response to Post #20. Do you see a point in it? I didn't. Then you divert to the side-issue of the Galilee vs. Jerusalem disparity. Yes, there is a problem there, but in this thread I have dealt with it. Note that I don't try to deal with Mark 16:9-20, and I acknowledge that it doesn't seem reconcilable with the rest. My main point is that Matthew takes the appearances in Galilee to Jesus's brothers as the main deal where the greatest number of people saw Jesus, and the apostles came there as well eventually.

As for the contrast between Luke and Acts, most everyone agrees that the same man wrote both, so in his own mind there was no conflict.

Yes, in Acts 1:4 Jesus tells them "not to leave Jerusalem", but that's right after 1:3 about Jesus being with them for forty days. It does not mention that any of those days were in Galilee, but Luke-Acts seems to be concerned only with Judea, not Galilee. Here we get what looks like first-hand accounts of what happened there. In contrast, whatever we get in Matthew (and in the first 8 verses of Mark 16) is directed towards Galilee, but without input from anyone who directly experienced any events there. The writer was not an eyewitness. See my derivation of the "Twelve-Source" in my article

"Resurrection Sources" . This does not necessarily make any Galilean events "mythical", but these vague references to Galilee correspond to vagueness about Jerusalem as well. We lack a unified account, but a writer from Galilee who knows only the news there won't necessarily know anything about news from Judea.

Adam

I include the verses about the guards in my Post #3 in this thread to meet Dan Barker's Easter Challenge, but they are absent (as is most of Matthew) in the second of my two threads detailing eyewitness verses, post #153

Gospel Eyewitness Sources

See my Post #55 above , first paragraph under "Resurrection Sources" for the crucial importance of Luke 24:12 for determining the development of the texts.

Cheerful Charlie

I think if Acts and Luke were from the same pen, "Luke" had a poor memory.
In Acts, Jesus stays in Jerusalem 40 days. but in Luke carefully reading shows that on the same day Jesus appears to two disciples ad then his apostles, he ascends to heaven on that very same day. contra Matthew in which on the day he arose he did not appear to two disciples or apostles at all.

Acts 1 after 40 days, "9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.


Luke 24
10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

So we are on day 1 then:

28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

So then:

33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


Then what happens?

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

No room here for 40 days. No commands to stay in Jerusalem AFTER 49 days. It cannot be fitted in with Acts 1, nor Matthew which instead of having them meeting Jesus and seeing him ascend, has them travelling to Galilee.. It does not fit with Mark, nor John at all, does it?

Matthew 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Oh how can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?
- Firesign Theater

Cheerful Charliie

James Brown

Curious how so many post-Resurrection appearances involve a case of mistaken identity.

Adam

Actually, Charlie,
I found your Posts #59 and #60 to be quite good, and I hope my replies did not seem harsh. However, this Post #63 shows little of the care you claim to prize. What convinces you that Luke 24:49 has to be on the same Day 1 as the rest of Luke 24? For your information, the text Marcion promulgated stopped after 24:47. Luke 24:47b-53 might not even be from Luke.

But even apart from that, those concluding verses in Luke definitely were intended to overlap with Acts 1:1-14. Yes, Acts 1:12 says "Mount of Olives", but that's close enough to "Bethany" of Luke 24:50.

My broader view of the Resurrection accounts allows for the possibility that the mountain in Galilee (Mt. 28.16) is a mislocated Mount of Olives. See the link in my #61 to (one of my four) article(s) in Noesis.

Cheerful Charlie

In post 63, I extracted from Luke 24, the verses that demonstrate that Jesus was
1. Reported missing from his tomb,
2. Appeared to two disciples and then disappeared
3. Appeared to the apostles
4. And was taken up to heaven at Bethany
5. All on the same day.
Luke is very explicit. I accept that all took place on one day because Luke says that
with no ambiguity.

Thus from his being reported missing by the 5 (or more) women until his ascension was one day, not 40. In Matthew, he tells his apostles to go to Galilee and they do.
Galilee is some 70 miles distance from Jerusalem, meaning that there is no possibility
they can be at Jerusalem at the same times as Luke in either Luke 1 or Luke 24, or John or Mark for that matter.

Matthew is clear, it is indeed Galilee and there is no ascension in Matthew. Luke takes place on the day Jesus is reported to not be in his tomb, but a walk to Galilee is about three days. Again, its at least 70 miles.

There is simply no way to reconcile these two accounts without doing violence to the narratives of these gospels. Or Acts with its 40 days. The words in these narratives are too explicit to be explained away by resorting to tortured explanations using claim ambiguities in wording of these narratives, which is generally a feature of these sorts of harmonizations.

Time here is a problem for harmonization, to say the least.

And when a harmonization starts throwing out entire locations, Matthew and Galilee as an error, it may well be all error, that is a rather slippery slope to step on to.

A number of orthodox Christians criitiqued Marcion, It is incredible that then, we are using Marcion's version of Luke. And they complained Marcion had deleted parts of Luke anyway. And Mark is also clear that Jesus appeared to the 11 and ascended that day from a room in Jerusalem. Matthew had them on the road in Galilee. Stiill a problem

Mark 16
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Acts 1
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

"At meat in a room in Jerusalem or from Mount Olivet?

Cheerful Charlie

Adam

Post #66 brings you lower in my esteem. FOCUS!

Have you even read any of my posts preceding the #21 you chose to jump in on? What is your response to my #1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 17?
I'll hold off answering your helter-skelter approach until you have shown some attention to what I have already written in those posts.

Cheerful Charlie

I cannot focus more sharpley on the issue at hand. You certainly disappoint me too, you toss little personal comments at me but ignore the points I make.

Luke most certain;ly tells us with nor wiggle room for you that Jesus met his apostles, led them out to Bethany and ascended to heavenn in the period of one day.
Matthew has Jesus appear only to two women. They tell the apostles that Jesus wishes them to go to Galilee. And according to Matthew they do that. A 70 mile walk to Galilee is three days walk.

In time and space, this does not work.

In Mark, Jesus appears to them and at that time ascends to heaven on the same day. Which cannot be reconciled to Matthew.

John cannot be reconciled with Matthew, or Luke.

FOCUS! On the facts these narratives relate. John lacks the one day scheme of Luke,
and contradicts Matthew where we are told Jesus does not meet with his disciples at
Jerusalem at all.

The specificity of the narratives I am pointing to here lacks the ambiguities on these points usually abused by these sorts of harmonization schemes we get in these sorts of arguments, which I have seen for 30 years now.

Which is why I focus on the unambigous and detailed narratives of Luke and Matthew to start. There is nothing at all helter-skelter about any of this, not when compared to your long posts and such things as opining that the mountain in Galilee is a mistake meaning the Mount of Olives, you ignore the part of the narrative of Matthew where the apostles are told to go to a mountain in Galilee where they in fact do go. No mistake here! You utterly ignore the fact that there is a logical connection to the commmand to go to Galilee and the apostles actually doing so. Which is not something that will not get criticised when you ignore such connectiviity and internal logic of a narrative.

Now focus on the points i make and cut the nonsense.

Do you agree that Luke gives us a narrative where discovery of the empty tomb by the women at the tomb to Jesus' ascension to heaven happens on one day or not? If not demonstrate how that can be without weasel word arguments, ignoring pertinent facts, attacks on me rather than the points I make.

Do you agree that in Matthew, the apostles do not meet Jesus themselves, are told to go to Galilee and do so as instructed?

Lets get this settled to start.

Cheerful Charlie

Adam

You still have shown no indication that you have read any of my posts preceding #21 in this thread, but I'll play along and assume that you are implicitly attacking this part of my OP set early on Easter Sunday:
I'm not an inerrantist, but for purposes of this thread at this point disregard my Post #65 (that confuses the issue with my own uncertainties), and I am just defending my answer to Dan Barker's Easter Challenge. Yet even inerrancy would allow (or demand) that Mt. 28:10 above put focus on Jesus saying, "go and tell my BROTHERS that they must leave for Galilee." NT use of "apostles", "disciples", and "brothers" is inconsistent (Paul's writings in contrast routinely use "brothers" to mean the Christian community), but here let's take it that james, Joses, Jude, and Simon and other family members are meant. They were Galileans, after all, perhaps most of them already were in Galilee. This leads to inferring that the earlier instruction to the women in the tomb at Mk 16:7c was that these were the people to be told to go to Galilee. The preceding word "disciples" is to be understood in the wider sense not just including the twelve apostles (excluding them, actually).

My scholarly position in "Resurrection Sources" and since (see my Posts #55, 57, and 61 above) is that one of the two earliest eyewitness narratives about the Resurrection of Jesus was the conclusion of the Twelve-Source (itself an attachment to Q1 by Matthew). This was a very brief account incorporated by later Galilean Christians into Mark 16:1-8 and Matthew 28, neither of which happen to mention that Jesus appeared to any men in Jerusalem (just women at 28:9-10). For them the big events after Easter occurred in Galilee. This does not deny that Jerusalem appearances also occurred.

And apparently you missed this latter part of my second post on this thread in Post #3:
Notice that I place Luke 24:49 after Acts 1:3 that inserts forty intervening days.

Cheerful Charlie

Before we do anything at all, let us find an anchor. Your on helter skelter approach is not new, and is pointless. now the point is this. Luke is written in a manner that does not allow ambiiguity. It is specific enough in wording to not allow weasel word games. it is an anchor.

Now it clearly tells us from empty tomb to ascension to heaven happens in One Day So any other narrative that must extend beyond a day and outside of Jerusalem/Bethany is not reconcilable with Luke is it? Why go further when we note on these specific points, Mark, John, Matthew cannot be reconciled with Mark which lacks loose phrasig that allows faux ambiiguity and slippery language?

Game, set match, QED, the king iis dead, snake eyes. So if so, why bother with anything else including your unlikely scenarios that are used to reconcile these narratives. So no, iam nnot going to consider your posts since my approach settles the issue, the narratives cannot be reconciled and makes your claims moot.

Now, do you agree that Luke plainly states from empty tomb to ascension to heaven happens one onn day iin Jerusalem-Bethany?

Will you admit that Matthew presents a scenario where no ascension happenns onn day one and three days later the apostles meet Jesus in Galilee?

Will you admit that there is no way to reconciles these narratives and that makes annd that we can nnow use settled issues of Luke being unambigous and clear to judge Matthew, Mark and John, now that we have a trustworthy anchor to start from, Lukes nnarrative?

if Luke is true, one day, John, more than one day cannnot be reconciled.
if my points show us that the harmonizationn of these gospels is impossible, I neede not bother with anything more, do I.

Luke is an anchor, a narrative without ambiguity by which we may judge the other nnarratives to start with "Do they fit with Luke, our anchor?".

i do not care about your posts, i have seen this sort of stuff for decades. what I care about is what I know is a good starting point, Luke, lacking weasel word ambiguities
that pins down a few narrative facts.

This allows me to demonstrate fatal contradiictions. And shows the whole set of
narratives cannot be reconnciled if we start with unambigous Luke. I don't really care about your earlier attempts at harmonizationn because I know it is impossible and I do
not want to battle over every ambigous verse that tradiitionally allows fruitless argle-bargle. Not when I can cut through that. I don't play THAT game anymore.

Luke again tells us all happened on one day without any possible ambiguities. That contradicts the other gospels and the whole attempt to reconcile is impossible.
If you are not going to deal with the story of Luke, and the hard story it tells us that are not reconcilable with the other narratives that are likewise clear and inarguable,
three days later in Galilee, I have no other choice than to declare victory and leave it to others to carefully read Luke and see if there is any reasonable way to deny it says what it says and that cannot be reconciled with other narratives, if they want to follow alonng in my wake.

I will not play the usual harmonization game where verses are taken out of context and indeterminant words, "its', "then", "they" are twisted and stretched to erect tenditious
castles of harmonization in the rarified air of theism.

My approach to starting with the most unambiigous gospel, Luke, cuts through all of that, by design. This is a tactic i have developed after having been through these harmonization games more than once in my decade on the net.

Cheerful Charlie