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 Lords 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.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

I have not read the full thread, but I was hoping to respond to the OP, if I may.

Did Paul witness the resurrection?

Paul did not witness the resurrection itself. (If by this, you mean the actual resurrection event.) Paul was not there at the time. Paul did not even meet Christ (that I have ever heard) while Christ walked in the flesh.

What Paul DID do, however, was hear Christ.

Note that in the passage from Acts:

"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him..."

The light from heaven flashed around him... and then Paul HEARD a voice. After Paul heard the voice, he asked who it was speaking to him, and Christ identified himself.

Paul (Saul) had also closed his eyes, because:

"Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing."


Paul did not witness the resurrection or meet Christ when He walked in the flesh... but Paul is a witness to the resurrected and LIVING Christ. It is not the dead that speak, but the LIVING who speak. And as the Living Word of God, Christ speaks.




In that way, Paul would constitute being a witness to the resurrection, because if Christ had not been resurrected, if Christ was dead, then Christ could not be speaking to him.



Peace to you,
your servant, and a slave of Christ,
tammy



[/b][/u]

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 41 by tam]

Tam,

Many people claim to see dead people " as evidence by the many such claims regarding "seeing" Elvis in dreams, visions, personal appearances, or whatever.

Most of us don't put much stock in those stories and testimonials. Do you?

Could those who "see Elvis" be said to have witnessed his resurrection?

Why should the story / testimonials regarding Paul/Saul "seeing" Jesus be treated any differently?

If the tale was not in a "holy" book (or in a "holy" book of a different religion and different god) would it be widely believed by Christians?

[tam]

Many people claim to see dead people " as evidence by the many such claims regarding "seeing" Elvis in dreams, visions, personal appearances, or whatever.

Most of us don't put much stock in those stories and testimonials. Do you?

In Elvis sightings, no. Unless Elvis faked his death and really is (or was) running around out there, lol. Dreams, sure, but sometimes a dream is just a dream.

I do accept that God (or Christ, now) speaks to people in visions and dreams, though not only in dreams/visions. But I would have to test the 'inspired expression' (the message) in order to know if that message truly was from Christ, or not.

I could not test the PERSON, but I could test the message.

Could those who "see Elvis" be said to have witnessed his resurrection?

No, because Elvis has not been resurrected, nor did he ever claim that he would or could be (until the time of the resurrection that is, if he believed in that).

(plus, from what I have learned from Christ, and except for Him, the resurrection has not yet taken place... so there are no resurrected 'idols' running around out there)


But I understand what you are saying. Do we just take their word for it or are there other possible explanations? Or is it true?

I would investigate, and withhold judgment, until I knew for sure one way or the other.

Why should the story / testimonials regarding Paul/Saul "seeing" Jesus be treated any differently?

Well, at the least, Christ said that He would be resurrected (according to what is written), so He made a claim. Elvis made no such claim.

Of course making a claim does not mean that claim is true... but it might mean that a person would pay a bit closer attention to those who claim to see/hear Him after His death (and resurrection)

Investigating.

For me, I have heard Christ... so I have no reason NOT to believe that Christ spoke to Paul, Philip, John, Peter, Ananias, etc, etc. I realize that my personal testimony (like theirs) may not mean much to you (not a judgment statement, just an acknowledgment), but anyone can ask to be given ears to hear... and so know this truth for yourself. If one wishes, and asks in faith. If one does not ask in faith (knowing that you will be answered at some point), then one might not expect to be answered.

If the tale was not in a "holy" book (or in a "holy" book of a different religion and different god) would it be widely believed by Christians?

The tale was not in a holy book (whatever religion) to start with. But yes, there would be some who believe, and some who do not. Widely believed? I doubt it. How many of those who claim to be Christian believe that Christ speaks even now - truly speaks? Even with their holy book that says He speaks?




Again, I do understand what you are saying.


Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 43 by tam]

Tam,

You don't put stock in Elvis sightings because "he has not been resurrected" and "he did not claim he would be." Right?

How, exactly, do you know Elvis has not been resurrected?

How do you know what Elvis did nor did not claim? Have you researched the literature about Elvis to determine that he did not say such a thing? Or is this just guesswork and personal opinion?

Your argument seems to hang on whether Jesus and Elvis predicted that they would be resurrected. Can you cite quotations of words attributed to Jesus making that claim " and show that they are not later additions / insertions?

It is not difficult for writers to "predict" something after it has happened -- and none of the gospels were written until decades or generations after Jesus is said to have died.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

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).

This assumes that the accounts did not survive in the gospels. And what in the world do you mean by a gospel tales claim. Do you simply mean none of the gospels claim to witness the act of resurrecting? I dont think anyone when using the term resurrection is referring to that. Most mean by it the state of having been resurrected. And three of the four gospels depict someone/s witnessing that.

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.

What would such a demonstration involve? The fact remains that the one, ONE, claim against the resurrection is the presupposition that miracles do not occur. It is not scholarship that works against the resurrection; it is skepticism. A fashion or temperament. All natural historical explanations of the gospels are historically implausible.

As for eyewitnesses surviving in the gospel literature. Critical and literary analysis reveal Mark to be highly dependent upon Peter. The notion that a fiction would place women as the first witnesses of an incredible event is historically implausible.
And there is NO Dispute about there being a spiritual among scholars. It comes from those who dont know Greek and are unfamiliar with 1st c. Judaism.

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.

The argument from "when they were written" is weak. Scholars in other matters have shown that in antiquity oral tradition was quite efficient in transmitting controlled blocks of teaching. The real problem is that the gospel writers never pretending to be reporting mere history as a modern understands that. They arranged the various material to make nuanced theological points.

Again, name your theologians/scholars please. The appeal to authority needs to include citations. I appeal to both E.P. Sanders and Gezra Vermes, neither of which are Christians; both of which believe that the best explanation for the empty tombs and the appearances is that there was an empty tomb, and that people saw what can only be described as a risen Christ in the flesh. The only historically plausible solution here is to claim illusion. And not even that is historically plausible.

This is an historical question. It has nothing to do whether one believes in miracles or not. One must immerse himself in 1st c. Judaism and at least Hellenistic Greek before commenting on events of 1st c. Judaism.

[tam]

Hello Zzyzx.

You don't put stock in Elvis sightings because "he has not been resurrected" and "he did not claim he would be." Right?

Yes to the first part. The second part is just commentary on my behalf.

How, exactly, do you know Elvis has not been resurrected?

I told you how. Because the resurrection has not occurred yet, as I have learned from Christ. I have no reason TO believe that Elvis has been resurrected. That being said, if I saw Elvis myself (and not an impersonator, and Elvis didn't just fake his own death), and/or Christ told me that He had resurrected Elvis early for some reason, well, then I would then have to accept that Elvis is running around, and I was incorrect.

How do you know what Elvis did nor did not claim? Have you researched the literature about Elvis to determine that he did not say such a thing? Or is this just guesswork and personal opinion?

As far as I know he did not make that claim. I would think that if he did make that claim, it would be common knowledge, because Elvis was huge. But admittedly, yes, this was guesswork on my behalf.

Your argument seems to hang on whether Jesus and Elvis predicted that they would be resurrected.

No, my argument can't hang off that... making a claim does not make the claim true - it was just a reason to perhaps pay more attention when a person make a claim and people start saying that they witnessed that claim being true. Even that does not MAKE it true... just might be cause to pay a little more attention, and investigate for oneself. Perhaps see/hear the truth of it for oneself.

Can you cite quotations of words attributed to Jesus making that claim " and show that they are not later additions / insertions?

Nothing was written down (that I am aware of) until after He died and was resurrected, so no, I cannot.

It is not difficult for writers to "predict" something after it has happened -- and none of the gospels were written until decades or generations after Jesus is said to have died.

Yes. But that is also conjecture. It is not conjecture that the works weren't written until later... but it is conjecture that the 'predictions' were not first spoken, and then later written down with everything else.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Tam, thank you for the considered, civil reply. Though I differ with you on almost every point, there is nothing personal involved (and no emotional involvement / investment my part).

Most Christians I encounter here or in real life do not seem to know or to have given much thought to many of these things. Perhaps that makes discussion / debate a little unbalanced.

How, exactly, do you know Elvis has not been resurrected?

I told you how. Because the resurrection has not occurred yet,

Aren't there Bible stories about several people being resurrected in addition to Jesus? It hasn't happened yet?

as I have learned from Christ.

Do you claim to have direct communication from Jesus? Is that in the form of thoughts in your mind or do you hear voices? (No need to answer if it is too personal or embarrassing).

I have no reason TO believe that Elvis has been resurrected.

The same can be said about Jesus. There are only unverifiable stories that he came back to life. Why believe those stories?

That being said, if I saw Elvis myself (and not an impersonator, and Elvis didn't just fake his own death), and/or Christ told me that He had resurrected Elvis early for some reason, well, then I would then have to accept that Elvis is running around, and I was incorrect.

I would say the same about Jesus, but don't know how to tell if it was an impersonator. For that matter, how did the ancients know that who they claimed to see after Jesus died was not an impersonator or imposter? Evidently some were said to not recognize him.

How do you know what Elvis did nor did not claim? Have you researched the literature about Elvis to determine that he did not say such a thing? Or is this just guesswork and personal opinion?

As far as I know he did not make that claim. I would think that if he did make that claim, it would be common knowledge, because Elvis was huge. But admittedly, yes, this was guesswork on my behalf.

Guesswork gets us in trouble in debate.

Your argument seems to hang on whether Jesus and Elvis predicted that they would be resurrected.

No, my argument can't hang off that... making a claim does not make the claim true - it was just a reason to perhaps pay more attention when a person make a claim and people start saying that they witnessed that claim being true. Even that does not MAKE it true... just might be cause to pay a little more attention, and investigate for oneself. Perhaps see/hear the truth of it for oneself.

How, exactly, does one investigate for themselves if the claim of the resurrection of Jesus is true?

Can you cite quotations of words attributed to Jesus making that claim " and show that they are not later additions / insertions?

Nothing was written down (that I am aware of) until after He died and was resurrected, so no, I cannot.

You seem to think that Jesus did predict that he would rise from the dead " but can't verify that. Right?

It is not difficult for writers to "predict" something after it has happened -- and none of the gospels were written until decades or generations after Jesus is said to have died.

Yes. But that is also conjecture. It is not conjecture that the works weren't written until later... but it is conjecture that the 'predictions' were not first spoken, and then later written down with everything else.

Has someone made the claim that "the 'predictions' were not first spoken, and then later written down . . "?

I would not contest that many of the stories about Jesus were "first spoken and then later written down". That identifies them as folklore, legend, hearsay, and/or rumor, etc over a period of decades or generations (possibly longer).

Christian scholars and theologians disagree about when the gospels were written or by whom or where gospel writers got the stories. Therefore, the truth and accuracy of reports of any events or conversations is far from certain. Yet in-the-pew-Christians seem convinced (and often claim in debate) to KNOW all those things. How is it that lay people know more than scholars and theologians who spend a lifetime studying the issues?

Most of us are aware that when stories are told and retold from person-to-person it is not uncommon for them to change dramatically with repeated retellings. If great-grandmother said something and grandmother told mother who told us can we be sure that we have the exact words and meaning long after she is dead?

[Haven]

All natural historical explanations of the gospels are historically implausible.

I've started a separate thread to discuss this, because I don't want to drag this one off topic. With that said, I just want to propose a few possible natural explanations for the gospels:

1. Mythical accretion and reconstruction by third parties from church legend and hearsay decades later (this is what's vastly most likely based on the historical evidence)

2. Miracle reports invented by disciples to make Jesus seem more credible (unlikely, but more likely than the supernatural)

3. Miracles were due to sleight of hand (even more unlikely, but still more likely than the supernatural)

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 48 by Haven]

What is it called and under what subforum?

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 40 by Hamsaka]

When i say my beliefs are founded on "revelation" i mean just that. Take the words literal meaning.

revelation: a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way.

I think this is how most of our knowledge is discovered. Like Newton, they say an apple fell on the head which demonstrates "revelation", but even if it isn't true the discovering of the foundation of physics was a revelation. The revelation of Christ as the Messiah is something that happened to me from my studies.

I first read the Bible being open to its word. I didn't know what christianity was about and i became open to its message when no one was giving me good answers to the mysteries of life, to purpose and meaning. In fact i looked to other places first for answers, and their solutions proved to be ineffective. I now liken that experience to the parable of the "wise and foolish builders" in Matthew 7:24-27 (go check it out).

No one gave me any good solutions, "be a good person thats all that matters" but they openly discredited and mocked Christ. I didn't question it tell the message they spoke of proved to be meaningless. It got me no where so only then i stared to wonder what Christianity was about. I have heard the "Jesus saves" but had no clue what it meant. I read the Bible.

There was no way i ever expected to have such a clear message, i have literally never had the kind of clarity i received from scripture. I read it open to its message and it did exactly what it said it would do, it changed my life. Everything it said blew me away, i immediately reread the New Testament 3 times over. How could it know such details to be relevant to my life? That was revelation. I now study the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, its like every time i uncover a literal meaning, or uncover another verse, its priceless. Its message holds strong in my beliefs. And it is because of the revelation of Christ's words which inspired the faith or Christianity.

I think by revelation is how we discover all things, including science, but the message of Christianity can hold as personal revelation for all those who are open to its message. It is here for anyone who seeks understanding, i believe if they do that they will gain understanding and have the revelation that Christ is the Crucified Messiah.