Comments on: Easter Cancelled. They’ve found the body…

By: Brian Harris

Brian Harris — Sat, 07 Jul 2018 03:44:42 +0000

Hi Bob.Sorry for the delay in replying to you. This post originally appeared a few years ago and is no longer very active – but let me give a quick response. If when you say the Gospel authors were not historians, I can only assume you mean “not historians in a 21st century sense” – and of course you are right. But then no one was. For their time and setting, the accounts they have left us are remarkable and dramatically better and closer to the event than the vast majority of accounts of other events in antiquity from which we have to piece together history. Luke’s gospel is especially careful when it comes to detail – actually, its impressive for its time. As regards the authorship of the gospels, there is no compelling reason to dispute the traditionally assigned authorship. It is highly probably that Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus, Mark by John Mark – who worked closely with Peter, Luke by a travelling companion of Paul. Some were direct witnesses to the events discribed, all were close to the action and to those who were witnesses. A balanced account of the arguments for and against the traditional authorship is found at this link https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels/ It is possible that Luke and Matthew drew from Mark’s account. What of it? In recaping history it is natural to consult whatever sources are available and then to agree or elaborate. None of the three slavishly repeat the other. Each adds its own contribution and leaves us with a rich portrayal of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. To describe John as a “grotesque Neo-Platonist fantasy” is strange. John certainly sees things in a fresh light and writes with poetic beauty and grace, usually pointing to deeper underlying truths, rather than simply recounting events – though his interpretation is always based on events, events which are easily identified and confirmed from the other 3 gospels. Through the centuries people have found John’s account profound and moving – and I fully agree with this. As regards your comment on the Jews rejecting Jesus – well yes and no. Many did reject him, but until the start of Paul’s ministry to the gentiles almost all converts to Christianity were Jewish – and that number included many Jewish religious leaders. You dismiss the Christians as a handful of drifters… pretty emotive summary don’t you think? And so amazing that these drifters changed the world so decisively for the good. And they were pretty courageous drifters, willing to die (and in many, many cases, actually dying) for what they claimed to have witnessed and clearly believed to have been true – that Christ had risen and that death therefore no longer caused them fear.
Thanks again for your response Bob.

By: Bob Black

Bob Black — Tue, 03 Jul 2018 19:26:57 +0000

The Gospel authors were neither “historians” nor “eyewitnesses.” None of the Gospels states that it was written by the author later arbitrarily assigned to it. None claims to be written by an eyewitness. The earliest, Mark, was written 35-40 years after the supposed events. Two of the other three, Matthew and Luke, are based on the first one, with a few new anecdotes thrown in, resulting in three Gospels which contradict each other. The fourth, and oldest one, is a grotesque Neo-Platonist fantasy which contradicts all the older gospels. Incidentally, there are some “Gospels” which are not included I the official Bible. Christians have been faking evidence for 2,000 (for example, the thousands of “miracles” ascribed to “saints”). Classical texts, especially religious ones, include many fakes and interpolations. Considering the amazing things that Jesus supposedly did, it is odd that there is no real historical evidence that he even existed. Did you think Mohammed physically ascended to Heaven from Jerusalem, as stated in near-contemporaneous sources about someone who is generally acknowledge to have been a real historical figure? Of course not. All religions and mythologies tell impossible stories. The best evidence against the Resurrection is in the Bible itself: the Jews, who knew him — if he existed — overwhelmingly rejected his Messianic claims, connived in his execution, and disbelieved in the Resurrection. Who were the “Christians”? A handful of drifters who went missing when Jesus was arrested. Where were 5,000 he fed when the Jews were shouting, “Give us Barabbas!” All this was happening in the Roman Empire, in a province heavily garrisoned by the Roman army. There is no Roman evidence of Jesus. Saint Paul, Tertullian, Origen, and other Roman Christian theorists admitted that the Gospel story was absurd, but should be accepted on faith.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 05:40:08 +0000

In reply to Paul Hammond. Well said.

By: Paul Hammond

Paul Hammond — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:49:27 +0000

As a prominent American lawyer once said “Let’s assume that Christ did not rise from the dead. Let’s assume that the written accounts of His appearances to hundreds of people are false. I want to pose a question. With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eyewitness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body: `Listen, I saw that tomb – it was not empty! Look, I was there, Christ did not rise from the dead. As a matter of fact, I saw Christ’s body.’ The silence of history is deafening when it comes to testimony against the resurrection.”