“But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son IN me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.” Galatians 1
Mark was written before Luke – Acts, as all scholars agree. Mark testifies of the empty tomb. Mark 16:1-8; so your development theory is wrong there. If Mark was written as early as 45 AD, then it was written before Galatians, 1-2 Thess. and 1 Corinthians, etc. – the earliest undisputed letters of Paul.
Also, the order of Luke – Acts also contradicts your development theory.
Because Luke was written before Acts. ( The empty tomb -Luke 24:1-12: and physical appearances – Luke 24:13-53; Luke 24:39 (“touch and feel and see Me that a ghost does not have flesh and bones as I have”) and eating fish (Luke 24:41-43) – this is all before Acts, so your main point about development is proven wrong.
Paul says in other places that Jesus actually appeared to him. ( 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8) Those are bodily resurrection appearances, and probably surrounded by blinding light, as in Acts 9, 22, and 26.
It seems that Paul saw the risen Jesus and He was surrounded by His glorious light – “unapproachable light” ( 1 Timothy 6:16 – a verse you like to use to talk about God Himself. This shows that the light in Acts 9, 22, and 26, is the pure light of God – that Christ is God by nature – as He showed His pure nature of shining light to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration – Mark 9:1 ff, Matthew 17:1 ff; Luke 9:28-36) that was so powerful it knocked Paul and the others to the ground.
The blinding light is meant to show that Jesus is God Himself by nature – the one who dwells in unapproachable light and the one who was transfigured on the Mountain when He showed His internal nature to those 3 disciples and the voice of the Father confirmed this.
Jesus also called this experience “a vision” (Matthew 17:9) – so it was an objective vision – something that was seen in reality (not a day time dream or subjective internal vision) a shared experience by the 3 disciples with Him on the Mountain.
There are NO resurrection appearances in Mark so that was a blunder on your part Ken. Almost all scholars date the gospels to a time after Paul. Your suggestion is desperate and implausible.
Paul calls the resurrection appearance a “vision” not a bodily resurrection. Presumably it was of the same nature as the visionary appearances to the disciples.
It is easy to see how the stories became embellished over time to suggest ever more realistic and physical characteristics. This is what tends to happen with religious experiences.
Jesus Al Masih also called the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration “a vision” – an objective vision.
Mark’s account of the empty tomb is enough as is and earlier. It is possible that parts of verses 9-20 were also part of the original, the events that are in Matthew and Luke that confirm most of Mark 16:9-20 as also true.
Muhammad’s vision 600 years later in a cave in the desert in Arabia, was a private vision and his own subjective religious experience and according to the Sira (is it also in Hadith and Tarikh ?), he thought he was possessed by a demon at first.
But the strongest point against your view is that Luke was written before Acts, which you did not respond to.
Luke 24:39-43 proves your development hypothesis wrong.
Also, the blinding light proves your view wrong. Jesus was God in the flesh and showed His unapproachable light and knocked Paul and the others down.
You talk about “objective visions” but won’t even tell me what’s on your alleged video camera installed in historical space and time? Absolutely incredible.
You claim these events were “objective” “historical events”. But you are unable to describe what’s on the movie inside your head. What are you afraid of? A true believer would not hesitate.
Historical truth is measured by the historical standards of evidence of that time – written documents, eyewitness testimony, archeology, harmony with other historical facts, hostile witnesses, etc.
Where are the written documents, eyewitness testimony, archeology, harmony with other historical facts, hostile witnesses, etc. concerning your “objective vision”?
“It is easy to see how the stories became embellished over time” Paul Williams
Last week you said 50 years. Have you retracted your former argument?
As I’ve repeated time and time again, even the most liberal scholars date the resurrection narrative to within 2 years of the event- some say within a few months.
I don’t know why you insist in trying to deceive people into believe if fabrications? Ironically, sounds very much like what the Quran accuses others of doing
Blogging Theology 
“But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son IN me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.” Galatians 1
to reveal his Son IN me
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good point!
LikeLike
Mark was written before Luke – Acts, as all scholars agree. Mark testifies of the empty tomb. Mark 16:1-8; so your development theory is wrong there. If Mark was written as early as 45 AD, then it was written before Galatians, 1-2 Thess. and 1 Corinthians, etc. – the earliest undisputed letters of Paul.
Also, the order of Luke – Acts also contradicts your development theory.
Because Luke was written before Acts. ( The empty tomb -Luke 24:1-12: and physical appearances – Luke 24:13-53; Luke 24:39 (“touch and feel and see Me that a ghost does not have flesh and bones as I have”) and eating fish (Luke 24:41-43) – this is all before Acts, so your main point about development is proven wrong.
Paul says in other places that Jesus actually appeared to him. ( 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8) Those are bodily resurrection appearances, and probably surrounded by blinding light, as in Acts 9, 22, and 26.
It seems that Paul saw the risen Jesus and He was surrounded by His glorious light – “unapproachable light” ( 1 Timothy 6:16 – a verse you like to use to talk about God Himself. This shows that the light in Acts 9, 22, and 26, is the pure light of God – that Christ is God by nature – as He showed His pure nature of shining light to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration – Mark 9:1 ff, Matthew 17:1 ff; Luke 9:28-36) that was so powerful it knocked Paul and the others to the ground.
The blinding light is meant to show that Jesus is God Himself by nature – the one who dwells in unapproachable light and the one who was transfigured on the Mountain when He showed His internal nature to those 3 disciples and the voice of the Father confirmed this.
Jesus also called this experience “a vision” (Matthew 17:9) – so it was an objective vision – something that was seen in reality (not a day time dream or subjective internal vision) a shared experience by the 3 disciples with Him on the Mountain.
LikeLike
There are NO resurrection appearances in Mark so that was a blunder on your part Ken. Almost all scholars date the gospels to a time after Paul. Your suggestion is desperate and implausible.
Paul calls the resurrection appearance a “vision” not a bodily resurrection. Presumably it was of the same nature as the visionary appearances to the disciples.
It is easy to see how the stories became embellished over time to suggest ever more realistic and physical characteristics. This is what tends to happen with religious experiences.
LikeLike
Jesus Al Masih also called the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration “a vision” – an objective vision.
Mark’s account of the empty tomb is enough as is and earlier. It is possible that parts of verses 9-20 were also part of the original, the events that are in Matthew and Luke that confirm most of Mark 16:9-20 as also true.
Muhammad’s vision 600 years later in a cave in the desert in Arabia, was a private vision and his own subjective religious experience and according to the Sira (is it also in Hadith and Tarikh ?), he thought he was possessed by a demon at first.
But the strongest point against your view is that Luke was written before Acts, which you did not respond to.
Luke 24:39-43 proves your development hypothesis wrong.
Also, the blinding light proves your view wrong. Jesus was God in the flesh and showed His unapproachable light and knocked Paul and the others down.
LikeLike
objective vision?
LikeLike
You talk about “objective visions” but won’t even tell me what’s on your alleged video camera installed in historical space and time? Absolutely incredible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
no such thing as video back then; we have the written documents 600 years before yours. Ours is older and more credible.
It is crazy for you to require 20-21 Century standards and criterion of video quality for ancient history.
LikeLike
You claim these events were “objective” “historical events”. But you are unable to describe what’s on the movie inside your head. What are you afraid of? A true believer would not hesitate.
LikeLike
Historical truth is measured by the historical standards of evidence of that time – written documents, eyewitness testimony, archeology, harmony with other historical facts, hostile witnesses, etc.
LikeLike
There is nothing on your camera, Ken.
LikeLike
There were no cameras back then. You are making a goofy point.
LikeLike
Where are the written documents, eyewitness testimony, archeology, harmony with other historical facts, hostile witnesses, etc. concerning your “objective vision”?
Your goofy claims are absolutely incredible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, the order of Luke – Acts also contradicts your development theory.
Because Luke was written before Acts. ( The empty tomb -Luke 24:1-12:
and physical appearances – Luke 24:13-53;
Luke 24:39 (“touch and feel and see Me that a ghost does not have flesh and bones as I have”)
and eating fish (Luke 24:41-43) –
this is all before Acts, so your main point about development is proven wrong.
LikeLike
“It is easy to see how the stories became embellished over time” Paul Williams
Last week you said 50 years. Have you retracted your former argument?
As I’ve repeated time and time again, even the most liberal scholars date the resurrection narrative to within 2 years of the event- some say within a few months.
I don’t know why you insist in trying to deceive people into believe if fabrications? Ironically, sounds very much like what the Quran accuses others of doing
LikeLike