Matthew 28 versus John 20.

quote:

---

They were written about 40 years after the resurrection so there would still have been eyewitnesses.

---

Really ? Matthew is usually dated about that time, but John is dated later typically to ~60 years after the events. And don't forget that the Jewish Revolt and it's aftermath would have reduced the number of surviving eyewitnesses. And I doubt that the (unknown) author of Matthew had any reliable eyewitnesses telling him about, for instance, the dead "saints" wandering Jerusalem (27:52-3)

quote:

---

I think it is generally agreed that the first books were by Paul around 50 AD and the first gospel, (Mark) was about 15 years later. I agree that the minor details would vary over that span of time.

---

Of course with both Matthew and John being written later there's plenty of room for more major differences to come in. Consider the differences between Matthew and Luke for a start.

quote:

---

That I disagree with. If everything lined up perfectly it would be a strong indication that there was an agreed upon agenda and they were going to make everything fit into a preconceived narrative. The fact that there are discrepancies should lead us to believe that we have the letters that accurately reflect what the original authors believed to be truthful, and not what someone later wanted to promote.

---

And thus we know that the author of Luke and Matthew disagreed to the point where we cannot trust that either account is reliable or based on reliable eyewitness testimony. (Although they agreed on much of the material that they copied from Mark).

quote:

---

There were no doubt other written records around by eyewitnesses, or from the accounts of eye witnesees that the writers would have drawn, (possibly Q), but I'm not inclined to think that they were copied directly from Mark, but who knows.

---

THat they drew from other documents is quite possible. That these documents were written by eyewitnesses or directly from eyewitness accounts is rather more doubtful. I'm not sure what the point in postulating additional copying is. It doesn't seem to be supported by evidence or help your argument.

quote:

---

As I explained earlier, I contend that the fact that there are discrepencies in the non-essential details of the accounts adds credence to the essential details of which the resurrection is central. Nobody who was trying to promote a fictional version of this would have put together things that had inconsistencies in the details.

---

Because obviously you should believe documents containing major inaccuracies... No, its evidence that there wasn't a coordinated plot to pass off a deliberately created invention as fact but who suggests that ? But it is also evidence that the account underwent a good deal of legendary development - likely after the writing of Mark, and who knows how much before ? Paul tells us very little about Jesus life, or even the resurrection - not even mentioning the empty tomb, for instance.

quote:

---

I know that there is nothing conclusive on the dates but I'm inclined to accept the earlier dates as there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

---

I consider the rewrite of the Olivet Discourse in Luke pretty good evidence that the author DID know of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And I very much doubt that you'd consider Paul's failure to say much of anything about Jesus' life or teachings as a reason to think that those stories weren't known in Paul's lifetime - but it's much the same argument.

quote:

---

That's been a contentious passage but in my view it is about Jesus saying to the Jews that if they attempt to defeat the Romans militarily is that the temple will be destroyed, but not that it had already happened. His message was that they should love their enemies, (the Romans), turn the other cheek and go the extra mile.

---

You're missing the point. My point is that the DIFFERENCES in Luke indicate that that version was changed by someone with a knowledge of the events of 70 AD. Others argue that much the same could be said of the version found in Mark and Matthew (or even that the whole speech was largely concocted from that standpoint).

quote:

---

Paul's message centred on Christ crucified and he expounded Christ's message of love, forgiveness, justice etc. He had not been a disciple so he wouldn't be able to directly quote Jesus.

---

But he would still be familiar with Jesus teachings and the major events of Jesus' life because otherwise he'd be no good as an Apostle. What you're really saying is that Paul was preaching his own religion - not that of Jesus.

quote:

---

Also, a great deal of his writing was to the various gentile churches and were about building up the various churches. I wouldn't expect Paul to write about the life of Jesus as he hadn't been part of that. He would logically leave that to the disciples, and those that had been part of his ministry prior to the crucifixion.

---

That's obviously bogus. You point out that the resurrection was essential to Paul's teaching so why not say more about it ? Why not mention the empty tomb (Paul could have even visited the site) ? Why not give more details of the post-resurrection appearances ? And that's just one example, although a very important one.

quote:

---

My view is that Jesus was saying that if the Jews were to try and oust the Romans militarily then the Romans would do what they always do

---

Again you fail to address the point.

quote:

---

It is quite possible that it was written after 70 AD but that doesn’t mean that what was written wasn’t faithful to what had originally been said by Jesus and each of the gospels contain different parts of the entire message that Jesus gave.

---

Well the evidence for the date of authorship was really the point, although it seems that your view also can't deal with the differences between the version found in Mark and Matthew and the version found in Luke (as well as failing to understand that the Gospel texts may have very little to do with what Jesus really said).

quote:

---

Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me.

---

But he never appealed to Jesus' authority as he would if he were repeating Jesus' teachings. And it seems odd that you would think that the resurrection was unimportant to Paul when you yourself said that it was of central importance. So why say so little about it or the post-resurrection appearances ?Remember that you were the one who argued that if something is not mentioned it is because the author did not know it.

quote:

---

Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me.

---

But it ISN'T implicit, because to have an empty tomb you need an occupied tomb first. If Jesus was buried in a common grave - as was typical for the victims of crucifixion - then there would be no tomb. Thus since Paul mentions the crucifixion it seems more reasonable to say that Paul implies that there was no empty tomb.

quote:

---

Well then if you don't agree that, then tell me what conclusions you would draw.

---

THe obvious conclusion is that you have some problem understanding rational argumentation. If I say that you fail to address the point I do not necessarily mean that your assertions are false, I mean that they are irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

quote:

---

I can't see where you get the idea that I felt that the resurrection of Paul was unimportant.

---

Because you don't think it important enough for Paul to give more details, if he had them. You simply assume that he would know them and leave them out. Yet you also argue that the Gospel authors would be expected to make explicit reference to the destruction of Jerusalem even though it does not occur in the timeframe they were writing about.

quote:

---

I guess we'll just disagree. The resurrection of Jesus was what spurred the early church into existence and implicit in that was that it was a bodily resurrection which included as part of that narrative the empty tomb, IMHO.

---

That's your assumption but it's one that has no significant supporting evidence. We have no mention of the tomb story prior to Mark, and Mark even seems to hint that the story was unknown earlier - Mark ends with the women leaving the tomb and telling nobody what they had seen.