Did Paul witness the resurrection ?

[DanieltheDragon]

In fact one comment i made earlier... The resurrection is something Paul witnessed, and this is why Paul converted to Christianity. So here is evidence that needs explaining. If the resurrection didn't happen then why did Paul convert?

This was posited in another thread that has gone in a variety of different direction, but I find this interesting enough to focus in and look at.

Questions for debate:

Did Paul witness the resurrection?

What constitutes being a witness to the resurrection?



Here is Paul's account as told by Luke:

Acts 9:1-9

9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?�

5 “Who are you, Lord?� Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,� he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

[Zzyzx]

.

Did Paul witness the resurrection?

Not even gospel tales or Paul/Saul's own letters claim that he witnessed any resurrections. Instead, he is claimed to have "met Jesus in a vision" (or hallucination, or delusion, or fabrication, or whatever it was).

What constitutes being a witness to the resurrection?

Not even gospel tales claim that ANYONE witnessed a "resurrection." There are tales about people (who left no known accounts) came upon an empty tomb. There is speculation about why the tomb was empty (if the tales were true about it being empty).

There are more tales about people seeing a "resurrected" Jesus – none of which can be shown to have been reported by actual people who claimed to have seen him. And, there is some dispute about whether the supposed sightings were of a "spiritual" or physical person.

However, there are no accounts written by people who can be shown to have actually witnessed an empty tomb OR a resurrected Jesus. The gospels were written decades or generations after the supposed events by people whose identity is disputed by Christian scholars and theologians.

[OnceConvinced]

There are more tales about people seeing a "resurrected" Jesus – none of which can be shown to have been reported by actual people who claimed to have seen him. And, there is some dispute about whether the supposed sightings were of a "spiritual" or physical person.

And don't forget that one of these: Thomas didn't even believe it was Jesus!

(I know, I know, I'm supposed to be taking the Christian perspective, but I just had to comment)

[DefenderofTruth]

Paul had a vision of the resurrection, this is known. Act's makes no secret of that, as the two men with Paul didn't see Jesus and Paul did...He talks about it in 1 Corinthians 15 as witnessing the resurrection.

I am guessing the debate here is of the "vision" itself... If that is qualified as a "witnessing of the resurrection"? Is that the debate?


What is clear is that this "vision" had a profound effect on Paul. It completely flipped his understanding around. It change his outlook and changed his understanding of Christ.

I think it is obvious that this "vision" had a huge effect on Paul's life.

Is it a problem to be a "vision"?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

From the Wikipedia article titled 'Resurrection'

Theological debate ensues with regard to what kind of resurrection is factual – either a spiritual resurrection with a spirit body into Heaven, or a material resurrection with a restored human body.[2] While most Christians believe Jesus' resurrection from the dead and ascension to Heaven was in a material body, a very small minority believe it was spiritual.[3][4][5]

I'm familiar with the 'restored human body' version of resurrection from my own Christian days. Apparently there is some dispute about what kind of body Jesus had post-resurrection amongst the minority. Nevertheless, 'resurrection' means a once living body, now dead, comes back to life by some supernatural means.

So it seems important, if one supports the claim of Jesus' resurrection from death back to being alive, that it's clarified whether he resurrected in a physical human body (as the scriptures say Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and touch my hand") or a spirit or soul apparition.

If I'm to be reasonably convinced, first I'll need solid supportive evidence that a soul or spirit 'form' can exist and be apprehended. If Jesus resurrected into a new physical body, I'd need reasonable supportive evidence of how something like that could happen. Was it a one off or had it happened before? If so, what's the comparison between Jesus resurrecting into a new physical body and Mr X who was also claimed to have been resurrected with a new physical body.

If these stories are true, Jesus must have been a lot more than a human being, or else he had help. If he was more than a human being, tell me how you know that to be true. If he had help, tell me what you know of this 'helper', but I have to admit, it started off being pretty weird and it's just getting weirder. I can't help that. However open my mind is to these things being true, I need at least BASIC supportive evidence, like something predictable that you could do to demonstrate there is a 'being' that can manipulate natural physical laws, zap new physical bodies into existence that Thomas could reach out and feel for himself.

That's a start, anyway

And after we knock that out, THEN we both will have enough basic information to examine whether or not Paul witnessed Jesus' resurrection.

I was taught that Jesus appeared to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. From http://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/historic ... -after.php , it appears Paul began his missionary work 16 years after Jesus' death. Not that long. GotQuestions.org admits there is no direct evidence that Paul (Saul) met or knew Jesus before the crucifixion, though it gives circumstantial evidence that Paul MAY have rubbed elbows with Jesus at the Passover, or attended a confrontation of Jesus by the Pharisees, him being one. But Paul doesn't mention any of these things himself in writings that survived to become the New Testament.

Nor did it appear Paul saw Jesus' DEAD body post crucifixion. It does not appear from the Gospels or Paul's testimony that he met the living or dead Jesus. Just that he 'saw' Jesus (while his traveling companions saw bright light and heard a loud voice).

Was what Paul claimed to see the same . . . thing, new body/soul/spirit? that the apostles claimed visited them, confirming Jesus' resurrection from the dead? Or was it a different kind of appearance?

All this is important to demonstrate Paul saw the resurrected Jesus, as was claimed. If he met the living Jesus, you'd think he'd have admitted it. Or if he was at the crucifixion, and hung out long enough to witness Jesus emerging from the tomb he was placed in, he'd have been busting himself to mention that.

These aren't 'extraordinary' requests for extraordinary evidence. If there were demonstrable or reasonable evidence for all of the above, it would have been included in the Bible, you'd think.

I realize 'believing without seeing' is blessed to Christians, but would the NT authors deliberately withhold this information just so people will exercise their faith? You'd think that would be mentioned too, just to be fair.

Instead, there are multiple admonitions from Jesus and Paul (among others) that believing what you're told about God and Jesus is far more holy than being shown.

Why is it? Not because, if these things (and beings) are TRUE, there is NO demonstrable evidence. If they are true, there most certainly is some kind of evidence that everyone who encounters it can rely on.

You'd think someone would have screwed up and left the evidence lying around in a clay jar, safely hidden from believers who obediently rely on faith. We haven't found that tablet or papyrus yet. Until we do dig it up, this collection of extraordinary tales accompanied by admonishments to just BELIEVE them (if you want anywhere near the Kingdom of God, that is) . . . by now, you can see my dilemma.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by DefenderofTruth]

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that Paul states he was raised on the third day, but he was not present at this point in verse 6 he states after that referring to the resurrection and appearance to the twelve. He also states that Jesus appeared to more than 500 before he appeared to him. He states that Jesus appeared to him last. he does not state he was present for the resurrection or that there was more than one appearance. This can only lead to the conclusion that the depiction in acts is what Paul was referring to.


The word appear is also shady to its interpretation as the Greek word it is derived from has some distinct meanings.

��άω horao {hor-ah'-o}

1) to see with the eyes
2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know
3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
4) to see, to look to
4a) to take heed, beware
4b) to care for, pay heed to
5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared

Note the second definition most assuredly matches the description in Acts. As he did not see but hear.

[Danmark]

Paul had a vision of the resurrection, this is known. Act's makes no secret of that, as the two men with Paul didn't see Jesus and Paul did...He talks about it in 1 Corinthians 15 as witnessing the resurrection.

This is simply not true. No where in 1 Corinthians 15, or elsewhere does Paul claim he witnessed the resurrection. You can prove me wrong by quoting the verse where he does. He argues for the resurrection. Elsewhere he claims he's seen the resurrected Christ in a vision, but even Paul does not claim to have witnessed the resurrection.

When Bible believers demonstrate they completely misread the Bible, totally misunderstand simple language, how can they possibly expect to persuade others of the value they claim to derive from it?

[Haven]

Paul had a vision of the resurrection, this is known. Act's makes no secret of that, as the two men with Paul didn't see Jesus and Paul did...He talks about it in 1 Corinthians 15 as witnessing the resurrection.

(emphasis mine)

The fact that the others with Paul saw nothing is evidence that the event was a hallucination, nothing more. Furthermore, the accounts in Acts 9 and Acts 22 contradict each other (one says Paul's companions saw nothing but heard a sound, and the other says that they saw a light but heard nothing), providing further evidence that this was at best a hallucination, at worst an outright fabrication by Paul or the author of Acts.

What is clear is that this "vision" had a profound effect on Paul. It completely flipped his understanding around. It change his outlook and changed his understanding of Christ.

I think it is obvious that this "vision" had a huge effect on Paul's life.

That's pretty much irrelevant. Taking hallucinogenic drugs and experiencing "visions" can have a profound effect on people's lives, but that doesn't mean the hallucinatory experiences are real.

[Danmark]

The fact that the others with Paul saw nothing is evidence that the event was a hallucination, nothing more. Furthermore, the accounts in Acts 9 and Acts 22 contradict each other (one says Paul's companions saw nothing but heard a sound, and the other says that they saw a light but heard nothing), providing further evidence that this was at best a hallucination, at worst an outright fabrication by Paul or the author of Acts.

It's also fundamentally important to appreciate that despite the apparent chronology of the events it's obvious from the account that Paul only wrote about this 'vision' after he'd been blind and without food and water for 3 days. Without water for three (3) days! Obviously Saul was sick and delirious and nearly dead from dehydration. This gives further credence to the conclusion he experienced an hallucination, not some supernatural apparition.

[Regens Küchl]

I have this theory which is not less believable than the alleged miracilous chlifechanging vision on the road.
Why came the vision while Paul traveled a road and when he rode alone the others following later?

Possibly Paul was simply waylaid by christians, struck down and beaten so badly that he even was blinded temporarily. Also threatened to stop his christ-hunting.

After that Paul choose to turn his dangerous situation to his advantage and to play the colossal reformed new boss of the christian church. The vision he also lied of course.