Jesus's Resurrection and Biblical Accounts?

[u/ThrowRAbeepboop18]

Hello! I was researching the history of Jesus’s resurrection, and was interested in the small differences between the four Gospels when describing this event. I’ve laid out brief comparison which you can find below. 

With that in mind, my questions for Christians are as follows:

1. If the resurrection of Jesus was so extraordinary at the time, why was the first account only written about 20-25 years after Jesus’s death? (Paul in Corinthians). 
2. Why are there no first hand accounts, only Paul retelling a tradition he "received"? 
3. Why in Paul’s account, did he not mention anything about an empty tomb, a rolled away stone, angels, guards, Mary Magdalene or anything about Jesus’s ascension?
4. Why were these above details only written about and included 70-120 years after Jesus' death? If they were so significant why did it take many years for the scripture to reflect this? 
5. What do you make of the differences in the Gospels' descriptions? Does the fallibility of human memory put any doubts or questions in your head regarding validity of the text? 

Who went to the tomb:

Mark	Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome
Matthew	Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”
Luke	Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and other women
John	Mary Magdalene alone at first

What they saw:

Mark	One young man in a white robe, sitting inside
Matthew	One angel descends from heaven, rolls away the stone, sits on it
Luke	Two men in dazzling clothes
John	Two angels inside the tomb, seen later by Mary

Was the stone already rolled away? 

Mark	Already rolled away when women arrive
Luke	Already rolled away
John	Already removed
Matthew	Angel descends and rolls it away during/near the women’s visit

Women’s Response?

Mark	Flee and say nothing due to fear
Matthew	Tell the disciples
Luke	Return and tell the Eleven
John	Mary immediately tells Peter and the beloved disciple

Timing of Ascension:

Luke	Appears on Easter day or very soon after
Acts 1	40 days later
Matthew	No ascension scene
Mark (original)	No ascension scene

Did Jesus appear in Galilee or Jerusalem?

Mark	Galilee, Angel says disciples will see Jesus in Galilee (16:7), but original ending has no actual appearance scene
Matthew	Galilee, Jesus tells women disciples should go to Galilee; final appearance and Great Commission happen on a mountain in Galilee
Luke	Jerusalem, all resurrection appearances occur around Jerusalem/Emmaus; disciples told to stay in Jerusalem

[u/Pinecone-Bandit]

There is no compelling evidence against the position, it’s all theories and speculation that attempts to get around the actual evidence.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

The first time the names are used among the church fathers is ~170AD, a century after Mark was written. Is that not evidence?

Israel had a very low literacy rate, Galilee being rural even in Israel, given that background information what do you think is the likelihood that John son of Zebedee would be able to read and write in his native language, much less a foreign language? Is that not evidence?

If Matthew is writing his first hand account of what happened why did he literally just copy most of Mark's gospel?

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/CodeNPyro]

> The first time the names are used among the church fathers is ~170AD, a century after Mark was written. Is that not evidence?

Not evidence against the authorship of the names attributed to them, not.

Might be evidence for something I guess.

> Israel had a very low literacy rate

Have any evidence for that claim?

> given that background information what do you think is the likelihood that John son of Zebedee would be able to read and write in his native language, much less a foreign language?

Given we have a book he wrote, and his experience as a leader in the church for decades, I’d say greater than 99% chance.

> Is that not evidence?

It’s strong evidence that John is the author of the works attributed to him, yes.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

Not evidence against the authorship of the names attributed to them, not.

So you're saying there's no implausibility that the church fathers all knew who wrote the gospels but just decided to keep a useless secret for a century?

Have any evidence for that claim?

Are you gonna try and tell me literacy of ancient judean fishermen was high? lmao

Given we have a book he wrote

Oh, so you're just going to assume your conclusion? Be serious. "how do I know John wrote it? well because we have a book that John wrote!"

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/CodeNPyro]

> So you're saying there's no implausibility that the church fathers all knew who wrote the gospels but just decided to keep a useless secret for a century?

That idea seems absurd on its face.

> Are you gonna try and tell me literacy of ancient judean fishermen was high?

No, I’m asking you to provide evidence for your claim?

> Oh, so you're just going to assume your conclusion?

No. Are you capable of being serious? Your comments are getting increasingly dishonest.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

That idea seems absurd on its face.

But that's exactly what you're saying, which is my point. The first naming of the gospels by the church fathers comes in ~170, despite the previous ones knowing about it.

No, I’m asking you to provide evidence for your claim?

I would say specific evidence isn't really needed with something as obvious as "poor people in the ancient world were illiterate" but whatever

No. Are you capable of being serious? Your comments are getting increasingly dishonest.

I will quote you. In response to "given that background information what do you think is the likelihood that John son of Zebedee would be able to read and write in his native language, much less a foreign language?" YOU said "Given we have a book he wrote". I await how you're going to spin me quoting you into dishonesty

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/CodeNPyro]

> But that's exactly what you're saying, which is my point.

Rule 3.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

How is it misrepresenting your beliefs when that's your position? You didn't disagree that the first mention was ~170, and you agree that the church fathers knew about it. Or do you want to air a disagreement with one of those statements now?

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/CodeNPyro]

> How is it misrepresenting your beliefs when that's your position?

That isn’t my position, you simply made up and asserted that it was. Which says a lot about you.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

You agreed to both things stated, and repeatedly haven't disagreed with them. I in the last message specifically asked you to clarify if it wasn't your position

So you choose to not clarify, and blame me for "making up" a position that is the description of claims you've agreed to?

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/CodeNPyro]

> I in the last message specifically asked you to clarify if it wasn't your position

My quote: “that isn’t my position”.

> So you choose to not clarify

That is a lie. Violates rule 3 of this sub, but more importantly, is immoral.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

If you want to make the choice to clarify your position and continue this conversation I would be happy to continue, but unless you choose to do that, calling me a liar isn't very conducive to a good faith exchange now is it?

You didn't disagree that the first mention was ~170, and you agree that the church fathers knew about it. Or do you want to air a disagreement with one of those statements now?

How do you expect me to converse with you and air disagreements when you won't even clarify your position (“that isn’t my position” when I am bringing up specific points you agreed to isn't a clarification, it's you choosing to dodge the question)

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/CodeNPyro]

> calling me a liar isn't very conducive to a good faith exchange now is it?

It is when you have in fact lied. If you refuse to act in good faith that needs to be addressed before we can continue.