Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Ed1wolf]

Interestingly, this whole discussion about what Acts says Paul saw can be answered by reading Acts. It says it was a heavenly vision.

At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me.
And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,
delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles--to whom I send you
to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
"Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, [Acts 26:13-19]​

It can't be made much clearer than that. Paul thought what he saw was a vision.

"Heavenly vision" does not necessarily mean false. Conceivably the light and voice in the vision could have been real. Or they could be figments of Paul's imagination or miraculous revelation in Paul's brain. Or it could be a story Paul made up. Regardless, a heavenly vision is different from meeting a man and talking to him as one walks down the road to Emmaus with no outward signs that this is any different from an ordinary man. Acts says it was a vision.

Again I don't see Acts as necessarily historical. When, in I Corinthians, Paul says Jesus was seen by him, he was not necessarily saying what he saw is what is recorded in Acts. But if the story in Acts is indeed what he saw, then he saw a heavenly vision. If, on the other hand, all we go by is the writings of Paul himself, then there is nothing there to make it evident he saw more than a heavenly vision. One would surely think if it was a physical encounter with a risen man in bodily form, he would say more than "was seen of me".

No, he obviously did not mean vision in the sense that it was a non-physical event. It obviously was physical, as I demonstrated earlier the people with him saw the light and heard the voice though they did not understand it. The terms heavenly vision can also mean "heavenly sight". Which means he saw the heavenly sight of the physically resurrected Christ in the heavens speaking to him. Paul's belief that Christ was bodily resurrected is also confirmed by Colossians 2:9 and Philippians 3:21, verses I notice you conveniently ignore. In the first, notice he uses the present tense. Christ is currently the embodiment of Divinity. The Divine is inhabiting a human body. In the second Paul is plainly referring to physical bodies being changed. One was lowly and then it becomes glorious like Christ's resurrected body as portrayed in the gospels, ie the testimony of the disciples, which Paul knew about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf, we are back to discussing Paul? I don't see anything at all in Paul that says he thought the grave was empty or the body was gone. Paul does refer to Jesus as being risen, but his risen Jesus seems to be made of some sort of spirit stuff. The Jesus he describes does not seem to be made of atoms.

Do you think Paul was describing a physical Jesus made of atoms? If not, what does it even mean to say that the body is physical if it is not made of atoms?

Paul says Jesus lives in him. How is that even possible if Jesus currently consists of a physical body? I think Paul thought Jesus was a spirit.

As we discussed, whenever Paul talks about the body of Christ he is always referring to the church. He never specifically refers to anything else as the body of Christ. You say that maybe he had a physical body and a metaphorical body, but you have not shown one verse to say he has both.

No, he obviously did not mean vision in the sense that it was a non-physical event. It obviously was physical, as I demonstrated earlier the people with him saw the light and heard the voice though they did not understand it. The terms heavenly vision can also mean "heavenly sight". Which means he saw the heavenly sight of the physically resurrected Christ in the heavens speaking to him.

That doesn't seem to be the way the word translated "vision" is used in the New Testament. See Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV) . It always means what we call a vision.

You say the people with Saul heard the voice but did not understand it. What did they hear? Could it have been distant thundering echoing across the valley, which Paul interpreted as words?

So considering that Acts is probably largely fabricated, and that even if true, the story described in Acts 26 could easily be something that could happen with the body still in the grave. I see no way that one can take Acts 26 as proof that Paul thought the body was missing from the grave.

Paul's belief that Christ was bodily resurrected is also confirmed by Colossians 2:9 and Philippians 3:21, verses I notice you conveniently ignore.

Flapdoodle. I have responded to Phillipians 3:21 multiple times on this thread.

Once again, Phillipians 3:21 does not say his glorious body is made of atoms. It does not say his body is physical. It does not say the atoms in the grave needed to disappear to make this body.

You believe that the earthly body of Paul decayed, and is no longer, yes? If Paul thought his body would decay and be no longer, why did he not think Jesus's body would do the same? If you think Paul lives in spirit even though his body is decayed, why could not Paul have thought the same about Jesus?

I understand the word "change" in Philippians 3:21 can also mean changing your clothes. This seems to be Paul's view of the resurrection as described in 2 Cor 5, where the inner person changes his clothes from the earthly body clothing to a heavenly body clothing, and the inner person changes his tent body he lives in on earth to a new body. Likewise, I Cor 15, compares it to a seed, where the seed dies, and the life inside springs forth to a new body. The outer seed does not change into a plant. The outer seed dies and decays in the ground, while the inner part builds a new plant body. That seems to be what Paul is saying. In fact Paul insists that the body that dies is not the body that arises.

In the first, notice he uses the present tense. Christ is currently the embodiment of Divinity. The Divine is inhabiting a human body. In the second Paul is plainly referring to physical bodies being changed. One was lowly and then it becomes glorious like Christ's resurrected body as portrayed in the gospels, ie the testimony of the disciples, which Paul knew about.

Please show me the words "human body" in Col 2:9. Please show me the words "physical body" in Col 2:9.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I see now that you are using Clement as a reference that the gospels were used, not that the authors were named. Your cryptic responses are often hard to interpret, and unless someone digs into the context, it is hard to tell what you are saying.

No, Clement does not clearly quote from our gospels. The closest I see is where he says those who cause division in the church would be better if they were drowned with a millstone on their neck, wheras Jesus in the gospels says those who offend children would be better with the millstone. By no strecth is this a quote of the gospels. It is just two places that use the same expression for different cases. It is like reading two books that speak of being up a creek without a paddle, and concluding that the second must be quoting the first. No, they are simply both using a shared expression such as "up a creek without a paddle" or "better off with a millstone around your neck".

Clement of Rome notoriously shows no knowledge of the written gospels or the teaching of the apostles. For instance when describing the crucifixion, his only source is Isaiah 53, with no mention of people who testified of the recent event.

But even if he did give a quote very much like a written gospel, that would not verify he was using Matthew and not using another source such as Q or the gospel of the Hebrews.

Clement in no way verifies that the early church had gelled behind the four gospels.

But even if the early church had accepted the four gospels, that still does not change the fact that the earliest record (the epistles) makes no mention of the empty grave or specific physical interation with the risen Christ, that the first gospel (Mark 1:1-16:8) makes no mention of anybody seeing Jesus, and only later do the stories of appearances appear in the record.

Clement would not have known that Isaiah 53 amazingly describes many aspects of the crucifixion if he had not read the gospels. So plainly he did know about them and read them. The earliest record is not the epistles. It is the ancient hymn Paul quotes in I Cor. 15:3-8, of which there is strong evidence it was written around 35 AD. It plainly mentions a bodily resurrection.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Clement would not have known that Isaiah 53 amazingly describes many aspects of the crucifixion if he had not read the gospels. So plainly he did know about them and read them.

Clement couldn't have heard about the crucifixion by word of mouth? Why not?

If Clement wanted to describe the crucifixion, and had a copy of the gospels, why didn't he quote from them? Here is what Clement has to say about the crucifixion:

1Clem 16:2
The scepter of the majesty of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, came
not in the pomp of arrogance or of pride, though He might have done
so, but in lowliness of mind, according as the Holy Spirit spake
concerning Him.
1Clem 16:3
For He saith Lord, who believed our report? and to whom was the arm
of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child
was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him,
neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor
comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of
men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear
infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held
of no account.
of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child
was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him,
neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor
comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of
men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear
infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held
of no account.
1Clem 16:4
He beareth our sins and suffereth pain for our sakes: and we
accounted Him to be in toil and in stripes and in affliction.
1Clem 16:5
And He was wounded for our sins and hath been afflicted for our
iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him. With His
bruises we were healed.
1Clem 16:6
We all went astray like sheep, each man went astray in his own
path:
1Clem 16:7
and the Lord delivered Him over for our sins. And He openeth not
His mouth, because He is afflicted. As a sheep He was led to
slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so openeth He
not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away.
1Clem 16:8
His generation who shall declare? For His life is taken away from
the earth.
1Clem 16:9
For the iniquities of my people He is come to death.
1Clem 16:10
And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His
death; for He wrought no iniquity, neither was guile found in His
mouth. And the Lord desireth to cleanse Him from His stripes.
1Clem 16:11
If ye offer for sin, your soul shall see along lived seed.
1Clem 16:12
And the Lord desireth to take away from the toil of His soul, to
show Him light and to mould Him with understanding, to justify a
Just One that is a good servant unto many. And He shall bear their
sins.
1Clem 16:13
Therefore He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoils of the
strong; because His soul was delivered unto death, and He was
reckoned unto the transgressors;
1Clem 16:14
and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered
up.
1Clem 16:15
And again He Himself saith; But I am a worm and no man, a reproach
of men and an outcast of the people.
of men and an outcast of the people.
1Clem 16:16
All they that beheld me mocked at me; they spake with their lips;
they wagged their heads, saying, He hoped on the Lord; let Him
deliver him, or let Him save him, for He desireth him.
1Clem 16:17
Ye see, dearly beloved, what is the pattern that hath been given unto
us; for, if the Lord was thus lowly of mind, what should we do, who
through Him have been brought under the yoke of His grace? [ from First Clement: Clement of Rome]
​

He says we can learn from Christ's humility, and then turns to lengthy quotes of Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 as his source of information about the life of Christ. This is one reason that many think that people like Paul and Clement found Christ in their interpretations of scripture, and had never even known him to be a man on earth. If Clement had thought Jesus to be a man on earth, why, when describing his humility, would he not turn to the record of events that happened on earth?

But we digress again. Whether Paul and Clement thought Jesus was mythical is a topic for the other thread if you want to get back to that. This thread is about the resurrection. Once again, when you look at early books like Clement, we don't find clear references to the gospels. Even at places where we would expect it, such as the quote above, there is not a hint of knowing that the four gospels exist and are filled with information on Clement's topic.

The earliest record is not the epistles. It is the ancient hymn Paul quotes in I Cor. 15:3-8, of which there is strong evidence it was written around 35 AD. It plainly mentions a bodily resurrection.

You have repeated this numerous times on this thread, but you still have not shown us one piece of evidence that I Cor 15:5-8 were was from around 35 AD. You have scholars that agree with you. I have scholars that agree with me.

And my scholars can beat up your scholars.

And whether "was seen" in I Cor 15:5-8 means a tomb was empty and a body came out has been discussed many times on this thread. You have heard my views on this, and refuse to even acknowledge my views. I think Paul is clear that his sighting of Jesus was a heavenly vision, and I see nothing here that indicates Paul thought anybody else saw anything other than what Paul saw. You think otherwise. So the readers of this thread are welcome to judge if "was seen" proves they were claiming a tomb was empty and a former corpse came walking out.

Back to my questions. Can you answer, please, when you get time?

Do you think Paul was describing a physical Jesus made of atoms in his risen body? If not, what does it even mean to say that the body is physical if it is not made of atoms?

Paul says Jesus lives in him. How is that even possible if Jesus currently consists of a physical body? I think Paul thought Jesus was a spirit.

You believe that the earthly body of Paul decayed, and exists no longer, yes? If Paul thought his body would decay and exist no longer, why did he not think Jesus's body would do the same? If you think Paul lives in spirit even though his body is decayed, why could not Paul have thought the same about Jesus?​

 

[bcbsr]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

1Cor 15:3-8
"what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also"

Concerning the first church, it was established upon Peter's preaching to thousands of Jews. In his he said:
Acts 2:32,22
"God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."
And
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

Why would thousands of Jews believe Peter if they knew Peter lied? They wouldn't have. The establishment of the church at Jerusalem proves the testimony of Peter and the resurrection of Christ

 

[doubtingmerle]

1Cor 15:3-8
"what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also"

Concerning the first church, it was established upon Peter's preaching to thousands of Jews. In his he said:
Acts 2:32,22
"God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."
And
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

Why would thousands of Jews believe Peter if they knew Peter lied? They wouldn't have. The establishment of the church at Jerusalem proves the testimony of Peter and the resurrection of Christ

How successful was it?

How Successful Was Christianity?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Good morning. Happy Groundhogs day!

Remember when you brought this up before, and I mentioned to you that your sources are all after 180 AD, and thus really do not qualify as contemporary sources of who wrote the gospels? We really don't know where they got there information from, but at that time a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon with the traditional authors.This does not prove they are right.

It may not prove that they are right but it IS evidence that by 180 the overwhelming majority of Christian leaders and scholars believed that the traditional authors were the authors of the gospels from pre-180 multiple independent sources including Mark and that Peter was his source.

dm: Good morning. Happy Groundhogs day.

Remember when you brought up before that Clement verified the traditional authors, and I disputed it, since it is clearly false. And then you did a bait and switch to Clement of Alexandria who was much later, and when I called you on your bait and switch you dropped the claim. And now you are back to Clement as a verifier of the traditional authors!

If you think Clement of Rome mentions the names of the authors of the gospels, please show us where. Please don't just slip his name in and hope nobody notices you have nothing here.

See my post about Isaiah 53 that shows that most likely he did read the gospels. He may not mention the authors but he did read at least one of them.

dm: And Ignatius? Ignatius doesn't even quote a gospel or even mention a written gospel. All he does is tell us he thinks Jesus really lived and died on earth.

Actually he does in his letter to Polycarp, he quotes "Take, handle me and see that I am not a bodiless demon (IOW spirit or ghost)." Which is a quote from Luke 24:39.

dm: Rolling on the floor laughing. You say this in response to two obvious statements that most everybody agrees with. Here are the statements you say you have scholars that disagree with:

Regardless of what Papias's reasons were for not quoting from the gospels the fact remains that he didn't (at least not in the surviving record) and without such quotes we cannot know which books he is referring to.

And actually Papias does tell us why he did not quote the gospels. He says that he cannot imagine there would be anything in them that would be better than the two men that were telling him about what the disciples said about Jesus.​

And those statements are absolutely true. We have no surviving quotes of Papias quoting a gospel. Papias does indeed tell us that he cannot imagine there would be anything in the gospels that would be more valuable to him than the living witnesses he was talking to. I quoted his actual words that said that to you several times on this thread.

So I call you on this. If you know a scholar that disputes that we have no surviving quotes of Papias quoting the gospels, or disputes what Papias said about trusting the living witnesses more than books, please tell me who, and what he says that disputes these claims.

No, I was referring many well respected scholars disagree with you and DO believe that Papias' testimony about John Mark being the recorder of Peter's memoirs and which is the Gospel of Mark that we have today IS evidence for that fact.

dm: Rolling on the floor laughing!

We have real records that we go by for things that we report as history. That is far different from your statement that there probably were records before 180 AD to the gospel authors, even though you could not find them other than your dubious claim for Papias.

While we cant name them at present, there is strong evidence that they exist as demonstrated above.

dm: Where are you getting this stuff?

We have a surviving copy of the book of Barnabas in the Codex Sinaticus of the 4th century. It is commonly thought to have been written between 80 AD and 120 AD.

From Wikipedia:
"The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claims to be by the biblical Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish." Sorry I meant late 16th century not 17th century.

 

[doubtingmerle]

From Wikipedia:
"The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claims to be by the biblical Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish." Sorry I meant late 16th century not 17th century.

Got it. We are talking about two different books. That is the source of the confusion.

I was talking about the Epistle of Barnabas Epistle of Barnabas - Wikipedia . You are referring to the Gospel of Barnabas. I was not even aware of that book. Although the earliest existing copies of that book are perhaps 16th century, we don't know when the book was actually written. But all of that is irrelevant because this is not the book I was referring to.

I am the one who brought this topic up, and mentioned that Barnabas is an example of an early book that could have clearly referenced the gospels, but does not. I was referring to the Epistle of Barnabas ( Epistle of Barnabas - Wikipedia ).

Actually he does in his letter to Polycarp, he quotes "Take, handle me and see that I am not a bodiless demon (IOW spirit or ghost)." Which is a quote from Luke 24:39.

Interesting. I was not aware of that. But no, this is not a direct quote of the gospel, and is not represented as a quote of a gospel.

You continuously argue that the "creed" in 1 Corinthians was handed down by word of mouth. So how is it that you are so insistent on this path for handing down information from the apostles, without accepting that other information may have come from the apostle by word of mouth or through documents that no longer survive? What was Ignatius's source? It is hard to get from this quote to a confirmation that Ignatius definetely knew of one or more of the current gospels.

I found this link that has the closest correspondences between Ignatius and Matthew that you may find interesting -- Did Ignatius know the gospel of Matthew?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Once again all of the oldest copies we have of Luke 3:22 say, "You are my beloved son, this day I have adopted you." It is not until later that manuscripts have the modern reading.

Please explain to me why "adopted" does not mean adopted.

Actually the greek says "begotten". Also, Matthew and Mark both have the other version of the verse and they are older than Luke.

dm: Perhaps we ought to change this thread title to The Opposite Thread. When Paul say he was not taught his gospel from men, you tell us that really means he was taught his gospel from men.

Uhh, you obviously have a poor memory, I did not say that. Both Paul and all the disciples taught that the gospel came from God not men. The gospel was preached by men but the gospel itself originated in the mind of God. So it depends on the context. Whether you are referring to its origin or how it is transmitted. But for Paul the basics of the gospel were directly revealed/preached to him by the bodily resurrected Christ.

dm: When Papias says he would rather get his information about Jesus from a living and abiding witness instead of a written book, you say what he really means is that he prefers the written books.

Again your memory is faulty, actually I had no real opinion on that, my reference to Papias is regarding his testimony that the author of the gospel of Mark being John Mark and his source being Peter.

dm: When Paul says those with him did not hear a voice, you say what that really means is that they heard a voice.

No, I said the grammatico-historical context shows that the best translation and interpretation is that they heard the voice but did not understand it.

dm: And now, when the earliest copies of Luke 3:22 say "This day I have adopted you", you say that means he was not adopted.

Yes, of course, it would be impossible for anything to contradict your doctrine. If you don't like something, you just say it means the opposite and that resolves it.

Interesting hermeneutics that.

No, see above how the original greek is "Today I have begotten you." Then see my explanation of what that probably meant my earlier post above.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually the greek says "begotten". Also, Matthew and Mark both have the other version of the verse and they are older than Luke.

Correct. Luke 3:22 in all the earliest manuscripts says "This day I have begotten you". I had mistakenly said "adopted" in some earlier posts. "Begotten" is correct.

But my point is still valid. The original version had this verse about Jesus being begotten at baptism. In the late 2nd century or 3rd century, when there was a big controversy with those who taught that Jesus was an ordinary man that became God's son at baptism, this verse was changed to the modern reading. It seems obvious why people changed it. In the varied opinions that existed in apostolic time, this was not an issue. But as beliefs gelled around "Orthodox Belief", this verse was a problem, and got changed. This is just one example of the editing that was done.

You say Mark and Matthew would then have differed with Luke. Exactly! That is my point. The early church had different opinions about doctrines, that eventually gelled around "orthodoxy".

Both Paul and all the disciples taught that the gospel came from God not men. The gospel was preached by men but the gospel itself originated in the mind of God. So it depends on the context. Whether you are referring to its origin or how it is transmitted. But for Paul the basics of the gospel were directly revealed/preached to him by the bodily resurrected Christ.

We have gone over this many times.

I am not talking about how Paul thought the gospel originated.
I am not talking about how Paul thought the gospel originated.
I am not talking about how Paul thought the gospel originated.

I am talking about how Paul says he got the gospel.
I am talking about how Paul says he got the gospel.
I am talking about how Paul says he got the gospel.

You have been told that over a dozen times on this thread. Do you need me to repeat that a few more times for your benefit?

Please, please acknowledge that I am talking about how Paul says he got the gospel. Once you acknowledge that, your paragraph above is meaningless.

Once again Galatians 1 says that Paul did not receive his gospel from men, and was not taught his gospel from men.This makes it unlikely that, in I Cor 15, where he declares his gospel, that he would repeat verbatim a creed that he was taught from men. In I Cor 15 he says he is declaring the gospel that he received. Since Galatians tells us specifically that he received his gospel from God, not from men, it makes no sense to then say the gospel he received was in the form of a creed that he received from men.

You do not need to agree with me, but I would love to have you understand me. We have gone over this over and over, and you don't even seem to get the basics of what I am trying to say. Do you need me to repeat it a few more times for your benefit? Would it help if I used a bigger font?

actually I had no real opinion on that, my reference to Papias is regarding his testimony that the author of the gospel of Mark being John Mark and his source being Peter.

That's odd, because you wrote a significant response to my claim that Papias said he did not think anything found in books about Jesus would be more valuable to him compared to what he was getting from a living person. The problem is that he was writing in 130 AD, so his "living and abiding witness" was most likely second hand from the apostles. And yes, I know that you disagree, and think that Papias's book speaks of his getting information from John the apostle (and you really don't need to write again to tell me that again, because I already acknowledge that you say that). It makes no sense to me that Papias--commonly thought to have written around 130 AD--would call John the apostle a living and abiding witness. And the only real source we have for Papias, the 4th century church historian Eusebius, agrees with me.

Anyway, Papias writing in 130 AD says he prefers his "living and abiding" witness, whoever that is, to anything written in gospels, so he is hardly giving a ringing endorsement of the gospels.

And though Papias says a book was written by Mark, he says nothing to indicate he is referring to the book we now call Mark. He gives no quotes. His description of Mark does not even seem to match Mark. And your latest response to that is that he is not describing Mark, but Peter's preaching. If your response is correct, than Papias neither quotes the book, nor gives any significant description of the book, so it is hard to know what book he is referring to.

No, I said the grammatico-historical context shows that the best translation and interpretation is that they heard the voice but did not understand it.

I disagree. Acts 22:9 says, "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. I think "heard not the voice" means "heard not the voice".

But even if they all heard a voice, that does not prove that a corpse came to life and that the larynx of that former corpse was making the sound of that voice.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The oldest documents are the ones that differ with Orthodoxy!

This is what you responded to:

Beliefs that seem to be found in early versions of the New Testament that have been sanitized out include Adoptionism (the belief that Jesus was a man adopted by God), Docetism (the belief that Jesus was a divine God that only appeared to be human), Gnosticism, and Separatism (the belief that Jesus was a man that was inhabited by a separate divine Christ)
​

And Ehrman documents all of this in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture giving dozens of examples of where the earliest readings supported these "heretical" views and later copies sanitized this out. And no, a lot of translations continue to rely on the sanitized readings. Luke 3:22 is a good example where the earliest copies all say, "This day I have adopted you".

See this website for just some of the problems with that book and there are others besides those:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2012/11/misquoting-manuscripts.html

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Again none of those edits affect any Christian doctrine.

dm: Why do you pontificate on things that you do not know, that you could not possibly know? Do you know what edits were done to the manuscripts before 150 AD? You could not possibly know that, because we have at best only a few tiny fragments before that time period. What edits were done before then? Who had those books, and with what care were they copied? We don't know.

No, most of the early orthodox Christians were either jews or had the same moral views as early jews, they believed in moral absolutes regarding truth. They wanted the most accurate copies possible of scripture and recording of events. They believed if they lied or tweaked scripture they were going to go to hell and probably even be punished in the here and now, therefore there is much less of chance that any major editing occurred. In addition, in the earliest manuscripts we do have there is no evidence of any major editing.

dm: But we know there was huge editing. The proto-Mark was changed to include several different endings. Most likely the original Mark ended at 16:8. It appears that others took the Proto-Mark and created proto-Matthew, Matthew,

There is no real evidence that a proto-Mark and a proto-Matthew ever existed.

dm: The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans, The Gospel of the Ebionites, Secret Mark, and Proto-Luke. (Others suggest Luke came from Mark and a source of Matthew, Q). And it appears other ancients took Proto-Luke and created the Marcion Luke, Luke/Acts and John. And to get from Mark to John is a huge case of editing.

The first three were written much later than the four canonical gospels, therefore are irrelevant as far as their historical accuracy. There is no evidence that Proto Luke or secret Mark ever existed. John is independent of Mark no editing there.

dm: Charles W. Hedrick writes in the Bible Review ("The 34 Gospels: Diversity and Division Among the Earliest Christians"):

In addition to the four canonical gospels, we have four complete noncanonicals, seven fragmentary, four known from quotations and two hypothetically recovered for a total of 21 gospels from the first two centuries, and we know that others existed in the early period. I am confident more of them will be found. For example, I have seen photos of several pages from a Coptic text entitled "The Gospel of Judas" that recently surfaced on the antiquities market. [Gospel of Judas ]

All of those were written much later than the canonical gospels.

dm: Of course you will tell us that the modern Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were authorized edits of edits of the original proto-Mark, but how do you know that? Everybody was changing the story to match their views. We have no surviving copies of any significant length for any of this before 150 AD. After 180 AD, however, we have an explosion of interest in the four modern gospels with many quotations. How can anybody look back at that, and say the edits in the four gospels we have were authorized, and the other edits were not? Many people were producing gospels. As far as we know, your gospels were edited as much as the other gospels.

See above about ancient jews and early orthodox Christians moral beliefs. And again there is no evidence of any significant edits.

dm: All of this is drifting from the topic of this thread, so lets steer it back on track. The original gospel, Mark, probably ends at 16:8 with an empty grave and no appearances.

So the earliest witness, Paul makes no mention of an empty grave or a missing body, and seems to be referring to a revelation/vision of a Jesus in a spirit body. That story gets developed to Mark where the grave is empty and a mysterious young man says they will see Jesus in Galilee, perhaps referring to seeing visions. Then later editors add stories--which contradict each other--about actual sightings of the man. All of this looks like legendary development to me.

To Paul and most early jews there is no such thing as a spirit body. You were either a spirit or a body. There was not enough time for legendary development to occur.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

I believe the story of the resurrection grew with time. Look at the surviving record. Paul makes no mention of an empty grave, missing corpse, or people interacting with an ex-corpse. His Jesus lives inside of people, and seems to be more of a spirit. The original Mark adds a stranger at the tomb saying Jesus would be seen in Galilee, but makes no mention of the disciples actually seeing inside the empty tomb or seeing Jesus. The later extension of Mark and other gospels add to this story. In addition, there may have been many other edits to the story before we got it.

No, most of the early orthodox Christians were either jews or had the same moral views as early jews, they believed in moral absolutes regarding truth. They wanted the most accurate copies possible of scripture and recording of events.

Greeks and Romans were also honest, and believed in morals, too. And sometimes Christians do not behave morally. Please don't try to claim that you have a monopoly on morality. You don't.

Do you have any evidence that the people who copied the gospels before 150 AD thought these books were scripture and should not be edited? We do not even know who had custody of them in that time frame, or what their attitudes were toward those books.

They believed if they lied or tweaked scripture they were going to go to hell and probably even be punished in the here and now, therefore there is much less of chance that any major editing occurred.

Wait, Matthew believed if he changed Mark he would go to hell? And yet he took 90% of the verses of Mark, made some changes to them, and then added significant content to make his book.

Did Matthew think he would go to hell for that?

In addition, in the earliest manuscripts we do have there is no evidence of any major editing.

We have nothing but a few scraps of the gospels before 150 AD, so this is in no way relevant to the topic at hand.

But what we do have after 150 AD shows significant changes being made. You agree (I think) that the ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery, for instance, were added later.

Thousands of Greek manuscripts exist, but no two manuscripts of any significant length agree on everything. If you think no changes were made, which one of those is the correct one?

There is no real evidence that a proto-Mark and a proto-Matthew ever existed.

Wait, what? How can we have a copy of Mark if nobody ever wrote a first copy of the book? That is what I mean by Proto-Mark and Proto-Matthew. We agree (I think) that the modern copies of these books are not the identical to the first copies. That is why I distinquish the first copy from the modern copy, and use the names Proto-Mark and Proto-Matthew.

Again there were many edits from proto-Matthew to modern Matthew. Also it appears that there were many edits from proto-Matthew to the similar Gospel of the Nazoreans, a book that appears to have come from the same proto-Matthew. Again, how do you know the Modern Matthew is closer to the proto-Matthew than the gospel of the Nazoreans? Just saying that it it so is not an answer. How do you know that the author of proto-Matthew (or whatever you want to call that book) was not closer in his views to the Gospel of the Nazoreans than he was to the Modern Matthew?

The first three were written much later than the four canonical gospels, therefore are irrelevant as far as their historical accuracy.

Which Matthew are you referring to? The proto-Matthew from the first century, or the modern Matthew sometime after the fourth century?

Both the Modern Matthew and the Gospel of the Nazoreans were later than proto-Matthew (or whatever it is that you call the first copy of Matthew).
[

There is no evidence that Proto Luke or secret Mark ever existed.

Again, how can we have Luke if there was no first copy of Luke? I call that first copy of the book Proto-Luke. What would you like to call it? Lucinda? We can call it that if you prefer.

And we have ancient references to Secret Mark. How do you know the book did not exist? See Secret Mark .

John is independent of Mark no editing there.

Understood that John did not simply copy from Mark as Matthew and Luke did, but clearly John is dependent on Mark in some place. Also much of his resurrection story clearly comes from Luke.

To Paul and most early jews there is no such thing as a spirit body. You were either a spirit or a body. There was not enough time for legendary development to occur.

What did angels have, if not spirit bodies?

What did Moses see, if God is a spirit and yet Moses saw God?

What do you think Paul is at this time? You say he lives on in spirit until he later gets a new body made for him. But in the meantime, in heaven, does he have a spirit body? Or is it just some sort of undetectable ghost with no ability to communicate or be detected? Or does he have some sort of spirit body in heaven?

 

[doubtingmerle]

See this website for just some of the problems with that book and there are others besides those:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2012/11/misquoting-manuscripts.html

Interesting read.

OK, so you find a scholar that differs with Ehrman? So who is right? It comes across that, maybe, you will report that those scholars that agree with you are right, and those who disagree are wrong. But is that necessarily so?

Interestingly, if you follow the link within your link to the source document, it does not disagree with Ehrman on the extent of the changes to the scripture. Rather, it disputes that the direction of the change is always in the direction Ehrman thinks, and disputes the motivation of the changes.

For the verse we are concentrating on, Luke 3:22, he agrees that a change was made to the verse, and agrees it was probably changed in the direction that Ehrman claims. He does say that Ehrman exagerates the evidence, and that the change was probably earlier than Ehrman claims. That, of course, is a good question for scholars to dispute: the extent of the documentary evidence for a particular claim. As neither you or I are an expert on ancient Greek documents, the best we can do is look for a consensus among scholars where we can find it. The consensus of these two scholars is that the change probably occurred away from the "this day I have begotten you" reading, but they disagree on what is known about when this happened.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting read.

OK, so you find a scholar that differs with Ehrman? So who is right? It comes across that, maybe, you will report that those scholars that agree with you are right, and those who disagree are wrong. But is that necessarily so?

Interestingly, if you follow the link within your link to the source document, it does not disagree with Ehrman on the extent of the changes to the scripture. Rather, it disputes that the direction of the change is always in the direction Ehrman thinks, and disputes the motivation of the changes.

For the verse we are concentrating on, Luke 3:22, he agrees that a change was made to the verse, and agrees it was probably changed in the direction that Ehrman claims. He does say that Ehrman exagerates the evidence, and that the change was probably earlier than Ehrman claims. That, of course, is a good question for scholars to dispute: the extent of the documentary evidence for a particular claim. As neither you or I are an expert on ancient Greek documents, the best we can do is look for a consensus among scholars where we can find it. The consensus of these two scholars is that the change probably occurred away from the "this day I have begotten you" reading, but they disagree on what is known about when this happened.

I guess I'm not seeing why Luke 3:22, all by itself, is such a "clincher" for the two of you.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf,

This would go a whole lot better if, when you respond to me you would consider what I have said when you have said the exact same things in the past. Instead I feel you are ignoring what I say, and you repeat the same things that have been answered many times. What do you have to gain from this?

Your strategy is like the chess player who just makes his moves, and ignores that his opponent has an obvious response that he always made in the past when he made similar moves.

I don't think I have done that very often, but the times I have repeated things is when you don't seem to respond to them in an intelligible manner.

↑

ed: Most of the biblical evidence points to no.3 being correct. Though of course it is not exactly like the body we have on earth but apparently there are some continuities between the bodies as shown in three of the gospels. The scriptures teach that our resurrected bodies will be similar to Jesus' resurrected body as portrayed in three of the gospels. Your old body is radically transformed as explained by Paul in Chapter 15.

dm: Oh, ppuhleeeze. We have been over this time and time again. You have never showed us one place where I Cor 15 says the body has to disappear from the grave in order for God to give us a new body. You have not shown us one place where I Cor 15 says the body that comes up is the same body. I have shown you where Paul says it is a different body.

Sigh, once again.


And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. I Cor 15 37-38

Exactly, Paul provides examples where the body is transformed not replaced with something totally different. A seed of wheat is changed into wheat plant, not a tomato plant. The seed contains the same genetic material as the adult wheat plant.

dm: And what about 2 Corinthians 5 where it says our bodies will decay but we will have a new body that will be eternal. I quoted that to you, you quote it back, and then you just ignore it.

OK, so you think Peter and Paul are alive today in some sort of spirit body. Yes, that is what Paul seems to be expecting. I don't think it actually happened, but that is what Paul was expecting, that his body would decay and he would be given a new body, eternal in the heavens as he describes in 2 Corinthians 5.

No, the jews and the early Christians knew nothing of a spirit body. They believed that there was a spirit and a body or a maybe a SPIRITUAL body which Paul says we will have in the next life. But not a spirit body, such a thing is not mentioned to exist in the Bible. A spirit body sounds more like a Greek concept. The early Christians were more Hebraic. They did not look down on the body like the greeks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

OK, back on the nature of the resurrected body. It seems your case would fall apart if you actually tried to answer my questions. Once more, for the record, here are my questions:

Do you think Paul was describing a physical Jesus made of atoms in his risen body? If not, what does it even mean to say that the body is physical if it is not made of atoms?

Paul says Jesus lives in him. How is that even possible if Jesus currently consists of a physical body? I think Paul thought Jesus was a spirit.

You believe that the earthly body of Paul decayed, and exists no longer, yes? If Paul thought his body would decay and exist no longer, why did he not think Jesus's body would do the same? If you think Paul lives in spirit even though his body is decayed, why could not Paul have thought the same about Jesus?​

I don't think I have done that very often, but the times I have repeated things is when you don't seem to respond to them in an intelligible manner.

If my responses are not intelligible to you, then why not ask me about my responses, rather than pretend I never responded and repeat the thing I had just responded to?

Exactly, Paul provides examples where the body is transformed not replaced with something totally different.

Uh, no, the body of the seed is not transformed into a plant. The seed opens up, out of it comes a plant, and then the bulk of the seed decays and dies. This was well known to the ancients. Sometimes the dead seed body even attaches to the plant and comes up out of the ground hanging unto the plant. It can be easily detached because it is not part of the plant.

Paul is clear that, just as the body of the seed is not what comes out of the ground, so the body that is planted in the grave is not what comes out of the ground.

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 Cor 5:1​

A seed of wheat is changed into wheat plant, not a tomato plant.

Wait, what? You are a body made of flesh and blood. In the resurrection you will be transformed into a body of flesh and blood? I think Paul disagreed. He said flesh and blood does not inherit heaven. He says what comes up is a different body from what is sown.

And no, a wheat plant is not a wheat seed. It is a bunch of wheat seeds combined with a life-giving network. Interestingly, if wheat seed represents a single body of a person in your analogy, and the body of the resurrected Christ is like a wheat plant in your analogy, then the body of Christ is like a whole bunch human bodies connected together with a life-sustaining supply network. Gosh, come to think of it, that is exactly what Paul means when he describes the body of Christ. For him the body of Christ is always the church. So the seed of wheat dying and yielding a wheat plant in this analogy is almost like saying the earthly body of Jesus was planted, and out came the church.

But I suppose you will ignore that because it is unintelligible to you, huh?

The seed contains the same genetic material as the adult wheat plant.

Wait, your heavenly body will contain the same genes as you? Why would a heavenly body need genes?

The heavenly body you are describing seems to be like a clone. Is your future clone the one that lives forever, while you decay in the ground?

No, the jews and the early Christians knew nothing of a spirit body. They believed that there was a spirit and a body or a maybe a SPIRITUAL body which Paul says we will have in the next life.

What the heck is the difference between a spirit body and a spiritual body?

Whatever, you apparently think Paul has some sort of heavenly existence at this moment, but for the life of me, I don't know what body you think he is in. His body decayed in the grave. So what body does he have now? A spirit body? A clone body? An Avatar?

But not a spirit body, such a thing is not mentioned to exist in the Bible. A spirit body sounds more like a Greek concept.

And we would never expect all Paul's Greek followers to accept Greek ideas?

The early Christians were more Hebraic.

Except for the Greek Christians, who were more Greek.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Why do you pontificate on things that you do not know, that you could not possibly know? Do you know what edits were done to the manuscripts before 150 AD? You could not possibly know that, because we have at best only a few tiny fragments before that time period. What edits were done before then? Who had those books, and with what care were they copied? We don't know. But we know there was huge editing. The proto-Mark was changed to include several different endings. Most likely the original Mark ended at 16:8. It appears that others took the Proto-Mark and created proto-Matthew, Matthew, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans, The Gospel of the Ebionites, Secret Mark, and Proto-Luke. (Others suggest Luke came from Mark and a source of Matthew, Q). And it appears other ancients took Proto-Luke and created the Marcion Luke, Luke/Acts and John. And to get from Mark to John is a huge case of editing.

There is no evidence for such a thing as proto-Mark or proto-Luke and most of the others you mention are gnostic and written much later than the canonical gospels.

dm: Charles W. Hedrick writes in the Bible Review ("The 34 Gospels: Diversity and Division Among the Earliest Christians"):

In addition to the four canonical gospels, we have four complete noncanonicals, seven fragmentary, four known from quotations and two hypothetically recovered for a total of 21 gospels from the first two centuries, and we know that others existed in the early period. I am confident more of them will be found. For example, I have seen photos of several pages from a Coptic text entitled "The Gospel of Judas" that recently surfaced on the antiquities market. [Gospel of Judas ]​

All of them are written much later than the canonical ones and are gnostic, like the gospel of Judas, whom your own article says was written around 150 AD.​

dm; Of course you will tell us that the modern Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were authorized edits of edits of the original proto-Mark, but how do you know that? Everybody was changing the story to match their views. We have no surviving copies of any significant length for any of this before 150 AD. After 180 AD, however, we have an explosion of interest in the four modern gospels with many quotations. How can anybody look back at that, and say the edits in the four gospels we have were authorized, and the other edits were not? Many people were producing gospels. As far as we know, your gospels were edited as much as the other gospels.

While Matthew and Luke used some of Mark, John was independent of Mark and there is no evidence for a proto Mark. There was only the original version of what we have now.

dm: All of this is drifting from the topic of this thread, so lets steer it back on track. The original gospel, Mark, probably ends at 16:8 with an empty grave and no appearances.

So the earliest witness, Paul makes no mention of an empty grave or a missing body, and seems to be referring to a revelation/vision of a Jesus in a spirit body. That story gets developed to Mark where the grave is empty and a mysterious young man says they will see Jesus in Galilee, perhaps referring to seeing visions. Then later editors add stories--which contradict each other--about actual sightings of the man. All of this looks like legendary development to me.

Paul was not the earliest witness, see the ancient hymn. None of the stories contradict each other. There was not enough time for legendary development.

 

[Ed1wolf]

OK, so you think Peter and Paul are alive today in some sort of spirit body. Yes, that is what Paul seems to be expecting. I don't think it actually happened, but that is what Paul was expecting, that his body would decay and he would be given a new body, eternal in the heavens as he describes in 2 Corinthians 5.

No, as I explained jews do not believe in spirit bodies, when you die you are either a spirit or a resurrected body. Right now, Peter and Paul are spirits but that is only temporary until Christ comes again when they will gain their glorified physical bodies.

dm: So we may have found one point of agreement! Shout it from the rooftops! After all this effort to find something you can agree on, you finally admit to agreeing on something! You and I both think that Paul was saying that when he dies, he will have a new spirit body that he lives in while the old body decays in the grave.

Of course we differ on whether Paul thought that spirit body is eternal. In my view, Paul clearly tells us in 2 Cor that when our earthly body decays, we will have a new body that is eternal.

But, no, you say, that spirit body is only temporary, and some day will be combined with our physical earthly body that will resurrect. How in the heck can that happen? Paul's earthly body has decayed, and the atoms have been absorbed into the ecosystem, and are probably spread throughout the earth. In fact, if you do the math, you probably have atoms that were in Paul's corpse that are in your body now. Do all those atoms need to be gathered back to re-form the corpse of Paul so it can arise? What can possibly be the purpose of that? And if those atoms were historically part of many corpses, to which corpse will those atoms go in the resurrection?

God is omnipotent so He can plainly reconstruct our bodies with or without our actual atoms. We don't know exactly how that will work but there will be some continuity between our present bodies and our resurrected bodies, this is plainly taught by the bible as I demonstrated earlier.

dm: Will the resurrected bodies be made of atoms? If so, do they not have the limits of the laws of physics? And if not of atoms, why does God need to bring all the atoms of Paul back together?

See above.

dm: You switch back to the gospels, but remember, they were written after Paul. Paul shows no knowledge of them, and little if any interest in the story they tell. Paul shows no interest in an empty grave or interacting with a resurrected corpse. So how do you know that aspect of the gospels was not something they made up after Paul?

Because there is strong evidence that they were written around the same time Paul wrote his letter except maybe John but there is evidence that even John was written before 70AD. He plainly did know about the gospels, that is why he didn't rehash what was in them, he already knew that they and their oral versions were being widely distributed.

dm: And yes, we all know what you will do here. Once more you will claim that since Paul compares the resurrected body to birds, fish, the moon and stars, and those are all physical, therefore the resurrected body is physical. Those are also all stupid! Those are also all mortal! Those are also all made of atoms and restrained by the laws of physics on atoms! Those are also all unable to talk! Those are also all decaying! By your logic, resurrected bodies are physical, stupid, mortal, made of atoms, restrained by the laws of physics, unable to talk and decaying! But if you say, no, you will accept only that they need to be physical, when one can use the exact same logic that you use to prove they are mortal, then you are using special pleading.

His whole point is about the resurrection being physical, he was not writing about the laws of physics or intelligence. You are just reading your own views into Paul's writings.

dm: And yes, you will go back to the list of names that Paul says saw Jesus, but remember I see no adequate explanation for why you would think Paul thought they saw more than a heavenly vision. You believe that Acts 26:19 has the words of Paul, and there it specifically says that what Paul saw was a heavenly vision. If that is all Paul saw, how do you know he thought the others on the list saw anything more? Saying that the later gospels say so, when Paul shows no recognition of the story of the later gospels, is not, to me, an adequate ansser.

See above about Paul and the gospels.

ed: Yes, but the verses in chapter 15 combined with the descriptions of Christs resurrected body in the gospels demonstrate that while there is a radical difference between the two bodies, there is also a continuity between the two. I.e., a seed grows into the same species of tree as the seed was. Jesus' was obviously recognizable in His resurrected body. Therefore He had the same facial structure hair color and etc. He even had the same scars.

dm: Huh? Paul says it is a different body that comes up. Nowhere does he say it is radically changed.

I would call the transformation of a seed into a tree is a pretty radical change.

dm: And if you believe the gospels, was he even easily recognizable? Luke says he walked with two disciples for a long distance without them recognizing him. John says Mary was talking to him and thought he was a gardener.

After seeing someone you know well get killed before your eyes, it is unlikely you would immediately realize that he is now alive and walking next to you. The human brain doesn't work that way. Also, remember He was beaten badly and all His scars were visible on His resurrected body, this would also make his appearance distorted, so that he may not look exactly the same.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is no evidence for such a thing as proto-Mark or proto-Luke

Sure there is. We have Mark and Luke. How can we have Mark and Luke, if there was no first copy they copied from?

All of them are written much later than the canonical ones and are gnostic, like the gospel of Judas, whom your own article says was written around 150 AD.

So Luke was wrong? He said many had written about Jesus before he had. There were many early books that Papias could have been referring to.

While Matthew and Luke used some of Mark,

90% is "some"? Matthew used 90% of the verses in Mark.

there is no evidence for a proto Mark. There was only the original version of what we have now.

It is widely understood that the original Mark stopped at Mark 16:8. So yes, that was something that got changed.

And there are 200,000 variations found in the surviving copies of the Greek New Testament. Many of those are in Mark.

No two Greek manuscripts agree on everything. If Mark was never changed, which one of those is correct?

Paul was not the earliest witness, see the ancient hymn.

Paul is the earliest written witness. "The hymn" is found only in Paul.

Where does "the hymn" says anything about an empty grave, missing body, or people interacting with a bodily risen Jesus?

None of the stories contradict each other.

Luke/Acts says the disciples did not depart Jerusalem from the resurrection until after Pentecost. Matthew says they went to Galilee and saw Jesus there. That is a contradiction.

There was not enough time for legendary development.

Legends can easily develop in 20 years.

And you have not proven the gospels were written before 70 AD.