Why the resurrection accounts are not evidence

[LinuxGal]

Defense attorney: "Which one of you fellows actually spent face time with Yeshua?"

Mattiyahu and Yohanan raise their hands.  Marcus and Lucas sit on their own hands, remain silent, and look away to a corner of the courtroom because they know damn well their Roman asses were never anywhere near Judea.

Defense attorney: "Okay, this question is directed to the eyewitnesses.  Where did you first see Yeshua after his execution?"

Mattiyahu: "Yudah of Kerioth quit, but we eleven remaining disciples went away into the Galilee region, to the west side of Lake Kinneret and this mountain near Magdala where Yeshua had designated for us to meet. There we saw him! Most of us revered him, but some doubted."

Yohanan: "No, Mattiyahu. That was later. Only Teom doubted, remember?  But only a week later he no longer did.  On the first day of the week after the execution, when the doors of the room we rented in Yerushalayim were shut and locked for fear of the other Yehudim, Yeshua somehow came and stood in our midst.  He said, 'Peace be with you.'"


Mattiyahu: "Nope."

Yohanan: "Yep."

The Defense attorney throws up his hands.

Judge: "Case dismissed!"

[Jehanne]

Jesus' so-called "resurrection" is not historical, because, no one living at the time bothered to mention it among the many thousands of literate human beings who could have.  The Romans did not mention it, neither did the Jews, nor the many thousands of pagans.  It was not until significantly later that the belief arose, first, as a "spiritual" resurrection that was only visible to believers, and later on, as the belief evolved and morphed over time, to a physical resurrection.  With the earliest accounts of Paul being phantasmal to the later of accounts of the Gospel of John (and, still later, the Gospel of Peter) being physical, the resurrection accounts become more "literal" over time.

These accounts are the stuff of legend, not history.

[LinuxGal]

Jesus' so-called "resurrection" is not historical, because, no one living at the time bothered to mention it among the many thousands of literate human beings who could have.  The Romans did not mention it, neither did the Jews, nor the many thousands of pagans.  It was not until significantly later that the belief arose, first, as a "spiritual" resurrection that was only visible to believers, and later on, as the belief evolved and morphed over time, to a physical resurrection.  With the earliest accounts of Paul being phantasmal to the later of accounts of the Gospel of John (and, still later, the Gospel of Peter) being physical, the resurrection accounts become more "literal" over time.

These accounts are the stuff of legend, not history.

Correct, but to address the common objection than "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", if the accounts contradict each other as sharply as they do here they are most emphatically not factual.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We’d have better evidence if the Roman soldiers hadn’t turned off their body cams.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Jesus' so-called "resurrection" is not historical, because, no one living at the time bothered to mention it among the many thousands of literate human beings who could have.  The Romans did not mention it, neither did the Jews, nor the many thousands of pagans.  It was not until significantly later that the belief arose, first, as a "spiritual" resurrection that was only visible to believers, and later on, as the belief evolved and morphed over time, to a physical resurrection.  With the earliest accounts of Paul being phantasmal to the later of accounts of the Gospel of John (and, still later, the Gospel of Peter) being physical, the resurrection accounts become more "literal" over time.

These accounts are the stuff of legend, not history.

Correct, but to address the common objection than "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", if the accounts contradict each other as sharply as they do here they are most emphatically not factual.

In some cases, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  In the case of Sasquatch, the absence of visible feces is strong evidence against the existence of such a creature, unless, of course, he and/or his feces is invisible, not smelly, etc.

[LinuxGal]

Correct, but to address the common objection than "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", if the accounts contradict each other as sharply as they do here they are most emphatically not factual.

In some cases, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  In the case of Sasquatch, the absence of visible feces is strong evidence against the existence of such a creature, unless, of course, he and/or his feces is invisible, not smelly, etc.

The idea of Sasquatch lends local color around here, but when Lewis and Clark came through they noted how the locals lived on fish along the river and even then they could barely make ends meet. Sometimes they bagged some elk, but Bigfoot ain't no meat-eater, I hear tell.  Logistics always gets the myth makers in the end.