Are the Resurrection Accounts Credible?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

The Resurrection of Jesus is often put forward as the proof of the legitimacy of Christianity. It is typically stated that there are multiple attestations of the event, thereby rendering it believable. It is the credibility of these several attestations that I intend to call into question. Please note that I am not rejecting ipso facto the idea of a dead body coming back to life. This was supposed to be a miracle, after all. Neither am I concerned with trivialities such as how many women went to the tomb. It is the credibility of the several accounts, and therefore the alleged fact of the resurrection, that I find lacking, for reasons other than simply the issue of a resurrection from the dead taking place.

The question for debate is therefore: Are the scriptural accounts of the resurrection of Jesus credible evidence that the resurrection took place?

[YahWhat]

[Replying to post 80 by Imprecise Interrupt]

2 Cor 12 wasn't a resurrection appearance. That was a different vision. He doesn't talk about seeing Jesus there. While this is further evidence that the Risen Jesus was only experienced "spiritually" it still doesn't help your case because it's explicitly labeled a "vision." He even says he didn't know if it took place "in or out of the body." Wow. Are you actually claiming that this was a face to face real world encounter? Paul may have believed the experience was real but so did Joseph Smith so that's not saying much!

I've already refuted your point about the Greek verbs for seeing, including horao. The appearance to Paul was a VISION/REVELATION (Gal. 1:16, it was not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he says "Jesus appeared (ophthe) to them and appeared (ophthe) to me too" without making a distinction. Your appeal to statistics is a non-sequitur because it's the CONTEXT that determines what the word means.

None of these people ever saw any of those things.

Which is exactly my point. Yet, they still use the words for normal seeing, right?

But as I just showed, they did know the difference between seeing real things and visions and the passages made it clear

The problem is that these ancient people thought their visions were real. They wouldn't have necessarily made the "real/not real" distinction between having a vision of an angel and going down to the local bazaar to trade goods. Both experiences were equally real to them because they didn't make distinctions like us modern people do.

"While first-century Christians still made distinctions between waking life and the world of dreams and visions, they were not what most of us would count as our own distinctions. In fact, in first century Palestine, a visionary or dreamed experience might even offer a deeper experience of “reality� than did more quotidian and tangible tasks such as going down to the local market to buy groceries. Furthermore, even in what we would consider these ordinary everyday tasks, the world was categorized in radically different ways: a purchase of meat was not merely an item on your grocery list, but risked participation in the spiritual realm of sacrifice to gods or demons." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011/04 ... urrection/

Remember, we're talking about a pre-scientific superstitious culture from 2,000 years ago. We must, therefore, place these texts back into their original historical context in order to understand them.

Josephus said nothing about visions. It was all about dreams and he knew they were dreams. This is irrelevant.

Dreams, visions, dream-visions. Same thing. Again, these people wouldn't have necessarily made a distinction between the two.

when the uses Paul makes of the word horao are put to the side

Lol! When the evidence that contradicts your position is cast aside then there's no problem whatsoever for you! Wow! How convenient! Again, it's the context that determines how the word is being used. I documented each instance of ὤφθη used in the New Testament in my previous post and demonstrated that 17 out of 18 times, the word is used to mean the spiritual/supernatural type of seeing. Did you miss that part?

It is simply not the case that horao is a ‘technical term’ for anything.

Dude! It's the aorist passive form ὤφθη (�phthē). Can you at least get that right? It literally renders to "appeared" "was seen" "showed himself" or "made himself seen." So understood this way, the person isn't necessarily the one doing the active seeing. Rather, the object/subject "reveals itself" to the viewer.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

[Replying to post 80 by Imprecise Interrupt]

2 Cor 12 wasn't a resurrection appearance. That was a different vision. He doesn't talk about seeing Jesus there. While this is further evidence that the Risen Jesus was only experienced "spiritually" it still doesn't help your case because it's explicitly labeled a "vision." He even says he didn't know if it took place "in or out of the body." Wow. Are you actually claiming that this was a face to face real world encounter? Paul may have believed the experience was real but so did Joseph Smith so that's not saying much!

I seriously doubt Paul ever experienced anything of the sort. He had his own take on what Christianity was supposed to be and it was not the same as those who actually knew Jesus. In 2 Corinthians, Paul has once again been challenged, this time about the Law. Paul says of those challenging him…

ΛΟΓΙΖΟΜΑΙ ΓΑΡ ΜΗΔΕ� ΥΣΤΕΡΗΚΕ�ΑΙ ΤΩ� ΥΠΕΡΛΙΑ� ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩ�
I-am-reckoning for in-nothing to-have-been-behind of-the over-very apostles

I am reckoning in nothing to have been behind the ‘very over’ apostles

KJV, which seek literal meanings, renders ‘over very’ as ‘very chiefest’.

Paul is up against the big guns, possibly even people who knew Jesus. He needs to justify his version of things. And so we have him meeting Jesus face to face in the third heaven. Where is the third heaven?

According to 2 Enoch, it is where “that place whereon the Lord rests, when he goes up into paradise�. Sounds like the right place to meet the Lord and hear what he has to say.

Chapter 8, VIII
1 And those men took me thence, and led me up on to the third heaven, and placed me there; and I looked downwards, and saw the produce of these places, such as has never been known for goodness.
2 And I saw all the sweet-flowering trees and beheld their fruits, which were sweet-smelling, and all the foods borne (by them) bubbling with fragrant exhalation.
3 And in the midst of the trees that of life, in that place whereon the Lord rests, when he goes up into paradise; and this tree is of ineffable goodness and fragrance, and adorned more than every existing thing; and on all sides (it is) in form gold-looking and vermilion and fire-like and covers all, and it has produce from all fruits.
4 Its root is in the garden at the earth’s end.
5 And paradise is between corruptibility and incorruptibility.
6 And two springs come out which send forth honey and milk, and their springs send forth oil and wine, and they separate into four parts, and go round with quiet course, and go down into the PARADISE OF EDEN, between corruptibility and incorruptibility.
7 And thence they go forth along the earth, and have a revolution to their circle even as other elements.
8 And here there is no unfruitful tree, and every place is blessed.
9 And (there are) three hundred angels very bright, who keep the garden, and with incessant sweet singing and never-silent voices serve the Lord throughout all days and hours.
10 And I said: How very sweet is this place, and those men said to me:

Chapter 9, IX
1 This place, O Enoch, is prepared for the righteous, who endure all manner of offence from those that exasperate their souls, who avert their eyes from iniquity, and make righteous judgment, and give bread to the hungering, and cover the naked with clothing, and raise up the fallen, and help injured orphans, and who walk without fault before the face of the Lord, and serve him alone, and for them is prepared this place for eternal inheritance.
www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/enochs2.htm

Notice the implications that this is the Garden of Eden, the place the sin of Adam kept people out of, but is once again available due to the death of Jesus and his resurrection. This is where the righteous will go as seen in Chapter 9 above.

Is the place physical or spiritual? Or maybe both? The description is very physical but in a perfected way. In 1 Cor. 15, corruptible dead bodies that were buried in the earth like seeds become incorruptible spiritual bodies, but bodies physically resurrected as the imagery clearly indicates. So of course Paul would not know if he went in the body or not. Remember that he is once again addressing the Corinthians who have heard that story about spiritual bodies coming out of the grave like blooming plants. (Pun intended)

I've already refuted your point about the Greek verbs for seeing, including horao. The appearance to Paul was a VISION/REVELATION (Gal. 1:16, it was not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he says "Jesus appeared (ophthe) to them and appeared (ophthe) to me too" without making a distinction. Your appeal to statistics is a non-sequitur because it's the CONTEXT that determines what the word means.

Galatians 1:16 says nothing about a vision.

Galatians 16
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Paul says that God revealed his son to Paul. Nothing is said about the means of that revelation. And he says nothing here about seeing Jesus. I fail to see what you think this is supposed to prove.

Now you want to equate the words ‘vision’ and ‘revelation’? Sorry, no.

The word translated as ‘revelation’ in 2 Cor 12:1 is apokalypsis, which means “laying bare, making naked� or “a disclosure of truth, instruction�. [Ref]

In all of the instances of this word being translated as ‘revelation’ [Ref], it is obvious that this is what it means, laying bare truth and instruction. For Paul to have said:

ΟΠΤΑΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΕΙΣ
Appearance and revelation

It would make no sense in context if ‘vision’ (opstasias not hareo) and ‘revelation’ (apokalypsis) meant the same thing. Paul’s point is that the gospel he got from Jesus in the third heaven is the real deal no matter what those other ‘much esteemed’ apostles say. Revelation refers to what Paul knows and they don’t.

What 1 Corinthians 15 actually says is not that ‘Jesus appeared’. It says:

ΩΦΘΗ ΚΗΦΑ
Was-seen by-Peter etc.

• The perp was seen breaking the window by numerous witnesses
  
  The perp showed himself breaking the window to numerous witnesses

See the difference?

None of these people ever saw any of those things.

Which is exactly my point. Yet, they still use the words for normal seeing, right?

My point is that Paul made up the story about all those witnesses to bolster his claim that Jesus rose from the dead even though other people who came to Corinth are saying different. Why would he make up a claim involving non-witnesses who only saw visions? Or if you want to say he was repeating a story about actual (alleged) witnesses, why would those witnesses say that they saw visions and not the real thing? You keep saying that they thought visions were real and could not tell the difference. Why would they say they saw visions and not the real thing? Why would Paul portray them as having had visions and not seeing the real thing, thereby undermining his argument?

And the question that never gets answered is if Paul is talking about a spiritual resurrection, how can that be reconciled with saying “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day�. Why would the spirit get buried and hang around until the third day?

But as I just showed, they did know the difference between seeing real things and visions and the passages made it clear

The problem is that these ancient people thought their visions were real. They wouldn't have necessarily made the "real/not real" distinction between having a vision of an angel and going down to the local bazaar to trade goods. Both experiences were equally real to them because they didn't make distinctions like us modern people do.

"While first-century Christians still made distinctions between waking life and the world of dreams and visions, they were not what most of us would count as our own distinctions. In fact, in first century Palestine, a visionary or dreamed experience might even offer a deeper experience of “reality� than did more quotidian and tangible tasks such as going down to the local market to buy groceries. Furthermore, even in what we would consider these ordinary everyday tasks, the world was categorized in radically different ways: a purchase of meat was not merely an item on your grocery list, but risked participation in the spiritual realm of sacrifice to gods or demons." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011/04 ... urrection/

Remember, we're talking about a pre-scientific superstitious culture from 2,000 years ago. We must, therefore, place these texts back into their original historical context in order to understand them.

The claim that the people back then could not tell the difference between visions and the real thing is often made but never backed up with substantial evidence. People try to justify it by pointing to the scriptures or to Josephus. The scriptures include the unusual, including angels delivering messages or people being raised from the dead and the like, for exactly the reason that these things are unusual and therefore impressive and evidence supporting belief. To say that having visions was commonplace is a self-defeating argument.

Casey’s problem is that he wants to take the NT scriptures as representing actual events (as per his theological training) but needs to provide non-supernatural explanations for them (as per his loss of religion). This is what leads to changing Paul’s made up story he meant to be taken literally by his readers into people having visions (including 500 identical and simultaneous ones), who then say they were only having visions and Paul then repeating that they were only having visions, despite this destroying the argument he is trying to make. Hey Casey, the great majority of the material concerning Jesus and the Apostles in the NT is made up! You do not have to pretend it is all based on real events and then come up with non-supernatural explanations for why it was reported the way it was.

Josephus said nothing about visions. It was all about dreams and he knew they were dreams. This is irrelevant.

Dreams, visions, dream-visions. Same thing. Again, these people wouldn't have necessarily made a distinction between the two.

Waking visions are not dreams. Dreams are not waking visions. Josephus talks about dreams and their interpretation. Nowhere does he talk about waking visions much less considers them real. And as I said above, Casey makes the claim you are putting forth but provides no substantive evidence for it.

when the uses Paul makes of the word horao are put to the side

Lol! When the evidence that contradicts your position is cast aside then there's no problem whatsoever for you! Wow! How convenient! Again, it's the context that determines how the word is being used. I documented each instance of ὤφθη used in the New Testament in my previous post and demonstrated that 17 out of 18 times, the word is used to mean the spiritual/supernatural type of seeing. Did you miss that part?

You are (intentionally?) misunderstanding. The intended meaning of the word used in 1 Corinthians 15 is the question. You count those instances as ‘proof’ of the meaning of the word by assuming they mean what you want them to mean. That is not valid argumentation.

Here are the instances of the use of ὤφθη (ΩΦΘΗ) in the NT.
(From here.

For the 1 Corinthians 15 to be suspected of being visions sent from heaven without them being identified as visions and the witnesses not being aware that they are just visions, we need to see other uses of the word where that interpretation also can be applied. That is the contention at stake.

1 Mark 9:4, Matthew 17:3

This is the Transfiguration pericope.

Mark says:

ΩΦΘΗ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
Was-seen by-them
Not ‘appeared to them’ as is often presented.

Matthew uses the same phrase. In fact, much of the pericope in Matthew is a virtual word for word copy of Mark’s. This counts as one use of the word, not two.

The Transfiguration pericope is an opportunity to show Jesus as representing the new covenant, the old one beginning with Moses and ending with the return of Elijah (John the Baptist), the precursor of the Messiah. Readers might take this as literal – Moses and Elijah really being seen - or literary – a fictional way of identifying Jesus with the new covenant by impressive imagery. After the cloud rolls away, Moses and Elijah are gone and Jesus is back to normal. A vision from elsewhere? Sure seems that way. Not identified as a vision? Since everything is back to normal after the cloud passes, that really cannot be said to be the case. The strong implication is that this was a vision and the witnesses now realize it.

This does not support the contention very well.

2 Luke 1:11

ΩΦΘΗ ΔΕ ΑΥΤΩ
Was-seen yet by-him
Note: Conjunctions like ‘yet’ appeared as the second word in a clause.
Note: Luke uses the dative form of ‘him’, same result, the verb belongs to ‘him’, not the angel.

The angel is seen by Zacharias. Was the angel intended to be understood as actually being there or broadcasting from heaven? Obviously really there.

This does not support the contention.

3 Luke 22:43

ΩΦΘΗ ΔΕ ΑΥΤΩ

Exact copy of the phrase in Luke 1:11. This not surprising since Luke 22:43-44 is visibly not original, being quite un-Lukan in character and breaking up the very nice chiastic structure. Another story. But it makes this reference irrelevant. Regardless, the angel is not supposed to be a vision from elsewhere but really there.

This does not support the contention.

4 Luke 24:34

ΩΦΘΗ ΑΥΤΩ

The two disciples who turned back from Jerusalem say that Jesus was seen by Simon. Jesus had been walking and talking with them and even shared food with them. Following this, Jesus shows his wounds and eats some fish. Definitely NOT a vision broadcast from heaven

5 Acts 7:2

ΩΦΘΗ ΤΩ ΠΑΤΡΙ ΗΜΩ� ΑΒΡΑΑΜ
Was-seen the father of-ours Abraham

The verse is actually scripturally incorrect.

Acts 7:2
And Stephen said:“Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’

Actually, Abraham never saw God until he had already lived in Canaan for years, long after Haran. Before that he heard God’s voice multiple times and had a dream once but it did not feature God in it. It is extremely rare that anyone ever sees God in the OT without the intermediary of the Angel of the Lord. It is not stated in what form Abraham saw God

The Septuagint for Genesis 17:1 uses ΩΦΘΗ (was-seen) to describe Abraham seeing God. This word is used again in Genesis 18:1 for once again seeing God. But it is in the form of three men. Abraham calls them Lord and bows to the earth. But he washes their feet and gives them a big meal. Sarah sees and hears them as well. This is not a vision. This is physically real.

As a result, it cannot be said that ‘was-seen’ in Acts 7:2 indicates a vision. If anything, it points in the other direction.

This does not support the contention.

6 Acts 7:26

Same word, but it is about Moses (in Exodus 2) and the Hebrews fighting each other. No vision. Moses was really there.

This does not support the contention.

7 Acts 7:30

This is a reference to Exodus 3

Exodus 3
2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.� 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!� And he said, “Here I am.�

The bush was really there and really burning but not consumed. Not a vision. God did not appear to Moses. He only spoke to Moses out of the bush that was really there.

This does not support the contention.

8 Acts 13:31

Acts 13
30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

Since Luke has Jesus show his wounds and state that he is flesh and blood and eat fish and physically rise into the clouds, obviously he was not just a vision after the resurrection.

This does not support the contention.

9 Acts 16:9

Acts 16
9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.� 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Explicitly identified as a vision and possibly a dream. Clearly Paul did not think the man was really there or he would have looked for him in the morning instead of going to Macedonia.

This does not support the contention.

J The Corinthians references

Since this is the question being addressed, these cannot be used as evidence supporting an assumed conclusion.

10 1 Timothy 3:16

1 Timothy 3
16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

ΩΦΘΗ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙΣ
Was-seen by-angels

Did Jesus show himself to angels in a vision from heaven? The only reference to angels seeing Jesus I can think of, is in Luke’s nativity narrative. Surely Jesus in the manger was not just a vision.

This does not support the contention.

11 Revelation 11:19

Revelation 11
19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.

Did the ark of the covenant show itself in a vision without really being in the temple? Or was it seen in there as the verse says?

This does not support the contention.

12 Revelation 12:1,3

Revelation 12
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.

Again, the signs are described as ‘was-seen’. Are these signs supposed to be visions sent from elsewhere or actually in the sky? Clearly they are bind represented as actually being in the sky.

This does not support the contention.

It is simply not the case that horao is a ‘technical term’ for anything.

Dude! It's the aorist passive form ὤφθη (�phthē). Can you at least get that right? It literally renders to "appeared" "was seen" "showed himself" or "made himself seen." So understood this way, the person isn't necessarily the one doing the active seeing. Rather, the object/subject "reveals itself" to the viewer.

The meaning is ‘was seen’. As demonstrated above, it is not a technical term with a meaning different from the meaning of the base word horao, which is to see with the eyes, with a possible sub-text of staring (as at something unusual). Ref Who would have been doing the staring?

[YahWhat]

Replying to post 80 by Imprecise Interrupt]The meaning is ‘was seen’. As demonstrated above, it is not a technical term with a meaning different from the meaning of the base word horao, which is to see with the eyes, with a possible sub-text of staring (as at something unusual).

Earlier I quoted the definition which you ignored.

"horá� – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)." https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

So all those experts in Greek who surveyed all the Greek literature where horá� is used are all wrong about it often being employed "with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)"?

Gosh, how about you let all the scholars know so they can all update their lexicons? I'm sure they will be impressed with your groundbreaking discovery!

Hebrews 11:27
By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw (��ῶν, hor�n) him who is invisible.

Gosh, how did Moses see "what was invisible" with his eyes? That doesn't make much sense now does it?

In my copy of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 5 under the section entitled "Usage and Concept in the Septuagint and Judaism" on page 325 it states:

"��άω and εἶδον are often used for spiritual perception."

On page 329:

"��άω and εἶδον are the characteristic words used for visionary-ecstatic prophetic seeing."

Page 330:

ὤφθη is “the characteristic term to denote the (non-visual) presence of the self-revealing God.�

It is used to denote being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception, or to the presence of God who reveals Himself in His Word. It thus seems that when ὤφθη is used to denote the resurrection appearances there is no primary emphasis on seeing as sensual or mental perception. The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, encounters with the risen Lord who reveals Himself or is revealed, cf. Gal. 1:16…..they experienced His presence.� – Pg. 358

So please, would you mind telling all the Greek experts that they're just wrong and to stop misleading the public?

And as for your hand-waving away of the use of ὤφθη in the New Testament passages:

"In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances. These include various angelic appearances - Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration- Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31, tongues of fire - Acts 2.3; Paul’s vision of a man from Macedonia - Acts 16.9, supernatural appearances of the heavenly Ark of the Covenant, a great red dragon, and a woman clothed with the sun - Rev 11.19; 12.1, 3; and appearances of God or the risen Christ - Luke 24.34; Acts 7.2; Acts 13.31; Heb 9.28; 1 Tim 3.16, and the various accounts of Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ by Luke. The only clear non-supernatural use of the verb in the NT is in Acts 7.26 where Luke narrates the appearance of Moses to two fighting Israelites (Exod 2.13). Josephus, likewise, uses the verb in describing supernatural events: the dramatic appearance of the goddess Isis; the supernatural opening of huge Temple doors;— supernatural events that take place before large numbers of people, such as the miraculous appearance of chariots and troops in armour running around in the clouds over Israel,— and a huge star resembling a sword which stood over Jerusalem." - Mark Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 107, 118.

"The LXX uses ὤφθη thirty-sex times with all but six referring to theophanic events (or angelophanies). Likewise, of the eighteen occurrences of ὤφθη in the NT, all but one refer to supernatural appearances to people." - Rob Fringer, Paul's Corporate Christophany, pg. 99.

"For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him." - Philo, On Abraham 17.80

Paul says that God revealed his son to Paul. Nothing is said about the means of that revelation. And he says nothing here about seeing Jesus. I fail to see what you think this is supposed to prove.

So Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus face to face before he went to heaven? What source says that? When Paul says "God revealed His Son in me" we are supposed to believe this is a reference to Paul physically seeing Jesus with his eyes while Jesus' physically resurrected body was still located on the earth? I think not. It's quite obvious that the "revelation" is from heaven and was a personal/subjective encounter Paul was describing. Therefore, it is *impossible* that Paul saw Jesus with his eyes (since Jesus was located in heaven).

Notice how Paul uses ἀποκαλ�ψεως/ἀποκαλ�ψαι "revelation" "a revealing" in Gal. 1:12-16 which is not a verb of seeing with the eyes. Yet, he still felt comfortable using this experience as a "resurrection appearance" of Jesus in 1 Cor 15:8 where he says "Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to me." We know Gal. 1:16 and 1 Cor 15:8 are talking about the same experience because of the genetic link established by comparing Gal. 1:13 and 1 Cor 15:9. In both instances, Paul mentions persecuting the church. He ceased doing so when Jesus "was revealed" or "appeared" to him. It follows that horao and the aorist passive form ophthe can have the "spiritual revealing" connotation. So the point is that Paul uses his experience described in Gal. 1:16 as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8. It follows then, that you didn't necessarily have to see Jesus with your eyes in order to claim he "appeared" to you. Understand now?

"Since Paul here uses ἀποκαλ�ψεως and not a verb of seeing, the passage also teaches that the event is to be understood as revelation, as the disclosure of divine truth and reality. Hence this thought is present even when the verbs of seeing are used. Verbs of seeing can become terms to express the event of revelation, and they can do so in such a way that the implied reference to (more sensual or more spiritual) perception is enhanced by the concept of openness to the event of revelation. In this sense the verbs of seeing may rightly be added to the revelational verbs discussed." - TDNT vol. 5, pg. 358.

In Acts the appearance is explicitly described as a "vision from heaven" - Acts 26:19. Since this "vision from heaven" is the "appearance" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:8, it necessarily follows that when Paul uses ὤφθη he is using it to describe a "vision."

"Now you want to equate the words ‘vision’ and ‘revelation’? Sorry, no."

Paul himself uses the terms interchangeably in 2 Cor 12:1 so, yes! Moreover, as demonstrated above, Paul uses his "revelation" of Jesus from Gal. 1:16 as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8.

And the question that never gets answered is if Paul is talking about a spiritual resurrection, how can that be reconciled with saying “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day�.

It's a four line formula:

1. Jesus died.
2. He was buried.
3. He was raised.
4. He appeared.

The actions in the 2nd and 4th lines correspond to the claims made in the 1st and 3rd. The "burial" proves he was dead. The "appearances" prove he was "was raised." Understood this way, the creed says absolutely nothing about a physical resurrection. It does not follow that a corpse literally walked out of a tomb. You're reading that into the text because being "raised" is ambiguous and can be interpreted different ways. It doesn't say what object actually is raised nor does it specify where Jesus (the person, whatever form he took) was raised to.

Why would the spirit get buried and hang around until the third day?

Did I ever say the "spirit gets buried" or is that your strawman? Jesus was believed to be in Sheol and then was "raised/exalted" straight to heaven. There, he received a new "spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-10) and "appeared/was revealed" spiritually to his followers.

The claim that the people back then could not tell the difference between visions and the real thing is often made but never backed up with substantial evidence.

"In Acts 10.10-17; 11.5-10, another of Christianity’s early leaders, Peter, is presented as experiencing visions. Peter sees his vision of a heavenly sheet while in a “trance�, and interprets its symbolic meaning as annulling the kosher laws. Peter simply accepts that what he sees during a vision must convey some real message from the divine realm. Conversely, in Acts 12.9, Peter claims that his escape from prison was facilitated by instructions he received from an angel. But significantly, Peter cannot determine whether the angelic instructions and his own escape were real or part of a vision. Grappling under a different conception of the boundaries between reality and nonreality, vision and waking life, Peter finally concludes that both the prison escape and the angel must have been real." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011/04 ... urrection/

There you have it. An example from the New Testament where one of the earliest eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ is said to have trouble distinguishing his vision from reality. QED.

The intended meaning of the word used in 1 Corinthians 15 is the question. You count those instances as ‘proof’ of the meaning of the word by assuming they mean what you want them to mean. That is not valid argumentation.

For the 1 Corinthians 15 to be suspected of being visions sent from heaven without them being identified as visions and the witnesses not being aware that they are just visions, we need to see other uses of the word where that interpretation also can be applied. That is the contention at stake.

Excuse me? What was the appearance to Paul like per the New Testament records? Did he meet the physically resurrected Jesus and touch him or did he have a vision/revelation of him from heaven?

This is what leads to changing Paul’s made up story he meant to be taken literally by his readers into people having visions (including 500 identical and simultaneous ones), who then say they were only having visions and Paul then repeating that they were only having visions, despite this destroying the argument he is trying to make.

Already addressed this. The appearance to the 500 could have been nothing more than a shared mass ecstatic worship experience like people have in Pentecostal churches today. It doesn't follow that they physically saw the Risen Jesus standing in front of them or all had "individual visions" of him. Plenty of groups of people claim to have "experienced" Jesus without actually seeing him and, as I've demonstrated, the word ὤφθη can carry the meaning of just "experiencing the presence" of God or Jesus.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

This is in reply to the fourth link provided by Yahwat in a previous post.

Empty tombs and "missing body" stories were an established literary theme in antiquity. Therefore, Christians can't claim the empty tomb of Jesus is a historical fact.

The unique feature of Mark that is not mentioned in Paul is the empty tomb. Paul already established the burial and resurrection as essential parts of the Jesus story but gave no details concerning the resurrection except that it was on the third day. ‘Missing bodies’ is far too vague a concept to be claimed as Mark’s inspiration. That the subsequent Gospels do in fact have Jesus appear bodily, which Mark does not, but none of them go beyond the empty tomb idea by including a resurrection event, underscores the empty tomb as being the essential feature of Mark’s account. In Mark, there is a burial and the claim of a resurrection but no witnesses to either that event or actual subsequent appearances by Jesus. The only ‘proof’ offered is the empty tomb where the body was known to have been. And this despite Mark having read 1 Corinthians and its detailed list of witnesses, as demonstrated by Mark’s use of passages from 1 Corinthians in constructing his Last Supper narrative. The empty tomb, following death and burial, and the absence of witnesses to a risen Jesus, is the important feature. What inspired Mark to end his Gospel this way?

"The theme of empty tombs was a familiar one in the ancient world. Aristeas disappeared from his temporary place of entombment (the fuller's shop) and later appeared as a raven and as a phantom in Herodotus's version. He received the honor due the gods and sacrifices in other accounts. Cleomedes, presumably still alive, disappeared from the chest he had hidden in and was honored as a hero with sacrifices. Many years after his death, Numa's body had disappeared, although there is no evidence he underwent an apotheosis. Alcmene's body disappeared from her bier. Zalmoxis, by the artifice of living underground, appeared three years after people thought he had died. He promised his followers some kind of immortal life resembling either resurrection or metemsomatosis.....Although Romulus was not buried (in most traditions) his body disappeared, and he was honored as the god Quirinus after appearing to Julius Proculus. Callirhoe apparently died and her lover Chaereas discovered her empty tomb with the stones moved away from the entrance. Inside he found no corpse. He assumed she had been translated to the gods.....Philinnion disappeared from her tomb, walked the earth as a revenant, and her corpse was later found in her lover's bedroom. Lucian's Antigonus (in his Lover of Lies) asserts: 'For I know someone who rose twenty days after he was buried.' Proclus included three stories of Naumachius of Epirus who described three individuals that returned to life after various periods in their tombs (none months, fifteen days, and three days). They appeared either lying on their tombs or standing up. Polyidus raised Minos's son Glaucus from the dead after being placed in the son's tomb. The Ptolemaic-Roman temple in Dendera vividly depicts the bodily resurrection of Osiris in his tomb. There are numerous translation accounts of heroes in which their bodies disappear when they were either alive or dead, including: Achilles (in the Aethiopis), Aeneas, Amphiaraus (under the earth), Apollonius of Tyana, Basileia, Belus, Branchus, Bormus, Ganymede, Hamilcar, and Semiramus." - John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis p. 598-599.

Aristeas
�I will now relate a tale which I heard concerning him both at Proconnesus and at Cyzicus. Aristeas, they said, who belonged to one of the noblest families in the island, had entered one day into a fuller's shop, when he suddenly dropt down dead. Hereupon the fuller shut up his shop, and went to tell Aristeas' kindred what had happened. The report of the death had just spread through the town, when a certain Cyzicenian, lately arrived from Artaca, contradicted the rumour, affirming that he had met Aristeas on his road to Cyzicus, and had spoken with him. This man, therefore, strenuously denied the rumour; the relations, however, proceeded to the fuller's shop with all things necessary for the funeral, intending to carry the body away. But on the shop being opened, no Aristeas was found, either dead or alive. Seven years afterwards he reappeared, they told me, in Proconnesus, and wrote the poem called by the Greeks The Arimaspeia, after which he disappeared a second time. This is the tale current in the two cities above-mentioned..�
Herodotus Histories
http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.4.iv.html

No empty tomb. Unless one is obsessed with finding empty tomb stories and the floor of a fuller’s shop can double as a tomb. It is not at all clear that Aristeas even died (in the wool?) there being a witness to the contrary. And he was obviously not buried.

Not relevant.

Cleomedes
Cleomedes hid in a wooden chest to escape the ‘lynch mob’ chasing him. They broke the chest into pieces but he was not inside. Cleomedes

No death, no burial, no empty tomb. Unless of course one is desperate to find empty tomb stories and a living person (supposedly) hiding in a wooden chest can double for a dead person buried in a tomb. This is not even a missing body story. It is a missing person story.

Numa
It is only in Plutarch, who wrote his Parallel Lives at the beginning of the 2nd century, that the empty coffin story appears. Ref Livy, who wrote about Numa much earlier knows nothing of it. [Ref

Clearly not an influence on Mark.

Alcmene
There are two versions of the story of Alcmene’s death. In one story, when Alcmene died, there was an argument over where she was to be buried, with the Oracle at Delhi specifying the place. In the other story, when she died her body turned to stone. Ref

No empty tomb. Not even a missing body.

Zalmoxis
Zalmoxis built an underground dwelling where he disappeared for three years. Then he came out alive. Ref Living person seen. No empty tomb. This is the opposite of Mark.

Romulus
According to Livy, it was claimed that Romulus was snatched away by a whirlwind during a thunderstorm. Ref

Missing person. No empty tomb.

Callirhoe
This is discussed further below.

Philinnion
Philinnion is a young woman who comes back from the dead and secretly ‘consorts’ with a young man who is a houseguest at her parent’s house. The young man does not know who she is but she gets spotted by others after which she dies again. Thinking this was really an imposter, they check her tomb and discover it empty. Ref

Empty tomb, check. But this is sort of backwards from Mark. In Mark, the ‘proof’ of the resurrection is the empty tomb. Nobody sees the risen Jesus. By contrast, Philinnion is seen and the tomb is found empty later on.

Antigonus
This character appears in Lucian’s Lover of Lies, ala The Liar. Ref In this satirically humorous work, Antigonus is portrayed as an accomplished but ridiculous liar, including his story about treating a patient both before and after his death. Lover of Lies is clearly a work of humorous fiction from beginning to end. What makes it irrelevant to Mark is that Lucian lived in the 2nd century, long after Mark wrote. ref

Proclus
In Plato’s story, Proclus did not die and was not buried. He was in a trance like state and when he talked about his soul leaving his body. Ref This allowed Plato to put his ideas about the soul in the mount of a ‘witness’

No empty tomb. Not even a burial or a missing body.

Branchus
Although I know Branchus as the lover of Apollo (eek!), who gave Branchus prophetic powers, I am unaware of any connection between Branchus and death, tombs. Resurrection, missing bodies etc. Can anyone turn up anything relevant?

Polyidus
Polyidus raised a dead child. The child had not even been buried yet. Ref

No empty tomb. No missing body.

Osiris in Dendera Temple complex
There are some remarkable reliefs in the Hathor Temple .in the Dendera complex. Ref Two of them depict Osiris. One shows Isis and Nephthys guarding the reassembled dead body of Osiris. There were attempts to destroy it. The other shows Isis impregnating herself with the magic phallus to replace the one that got eaten. Osiris was only alive enough and for long enough to do his part in this. Am unaware of any relief or other picture or even a myth that has Osiris come out of his tomb. Anybody?

https://live.staticflickr.com/4650/4015 ... 59a2_b.jpg
http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/3/bb ... /GW687H317

Achilles
There is no empty tomb or missing body in the story of Achilles. When Achilles is killed, his mother (a Nereid, not human) takes his body from the funeral pyre and brings it home to the Blessed Isles. Ref

Aeneas
There are several accounts of the death of Aeneas. On is that he disappeared in the middle of a battle. Ref

No empty tomb. Just a missing person.

Amphiaraus
Amphiaraus ticked off Zeus who threw a thunderbolt that opened the earth and swallowed Amphiaraus. Ref

No empty tomb.

Apollonius of Tyana
Philostratus wrote a book that looks amazingly like an account of the life of Jesus as recounted in the several Gospels, except that the main character( Apollonius) is Greek, not Jewish. The catch is that Philostratus wrote well after a century after the Gospels. Ref

Obviously not an influence on Mark. It would seem the arrow points in the other direction.

Basilea
Basilea disappeared in a lightning storm. Ref

No empty tomb.

Belus
The name Belus refers to a number of entities, human and divine. I am unable to connect any of them to empty tombs, missing bodies etc. Anyone?

Bormus
Bormus was pulled into a well by Nymphs. Ref

No empty tomb.

Ganymede
Zeus abducted the young boy Ganymede to be his ‘wine server’. Sure… Ref
No empty tomb.

Hamilcar
Hamilcar Barca was lost in battle, probably drowning in a river. Ref
No empty tomb.

Semiramis
Ara, the lover of the woman military leader Semiramis, was killed in battle. She disguised someone else to look like Ara and had him ride into battle with her to foster the legend that she was a sorceress who could raise the dead, demoralizing the enemy. Ref
No empty tomb.

The only empty tomb story in the list that pre-dates Mark is the one about Philinnion. But it is not a great fit. Philinnion is actually seen after she dies. If this were Mark’s inspiration for inventing a story about an empty tomb, why would he leave out inventing sightings? It would also require that Mark, seemingly an Aramaic speaker of Jewish background, would know this story from Greek mythology.

In addition to the "missing body" motif there was also the theme of post-mortem sightings of these individuals which can be compared with Mark's prediction in 16:7 – "There you will see him..."

Mark very pointedly has no witnesses. The person who claims that Jesus rose from the dead and left town simply says that:

Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him.

Mark never has anyone see Jesus. If he invented the empty tomb stoey, why not invent witnesses? Especially with Paul’s example as a starter. Matthew recognizes the seriousness of this absence and comes up with rather awkward post-resurrection appearances. And of course Matthew changes that rather suspicious young man into an angel coming out of the sky to make what he says less suspicious.

"Appolonius asserts that after Aristeas's death in the fuller's shop, he was seen by many (Hist. mir. 2.1). Aeneas of Gaza remarks that he was seen 240 years after his death in Italy (Theophrastus 63-64 Colonna). Julius Proculus swore that Romulus 'appeared handsome and mighty' - (Plutarch Rom. 28.1). Philinnion's nurse saw her sitting next to her lover Machates (Phlegon De mir 1.1). Her tomb was empty at that point. Heroes such as the Dioscuri are 'seen by those who are in danger on the sea.' - (Isocrates Hel. enc. Or. 10,61. Leonynius used to say that he had seen Achilles on Leuke - (Pausanius 3.19.13). Maximus of Tyre claimed to 'have seen the Dioscuri, in the form of bright stars, righting a ship in a storm. I have seen Asclepius, and that not in a dream. I have seen Heracles, in waking reality.' (Maximus of Tyre Diss. 9.7). Celsus also attests the multitude of people who have seen and still see Asclepius (Origen Contra Celsus 3.24). Appolonius of Tyana told Damis that after his death, he would appear to him (Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 7.41). Appolonius's body disappeared, however, and only his soul was made immortal according to Philostratus. An old man claimed that he had recently seen Peregrinus in white clothing after his death (Lucian Peregrinus 40)." ibid, p. 600.

For sources, see the section entitled Empty Tombs with Subsequent Appearances.

Since Mark has no witnesses to the risen Jesus, all of the references to sightings after a supposed resurrection or disappearance are not relevant to why Mark has an empty tomb story.

In any case, the source provided falls rather short of inspiring a sense of honesty and credibility.

“Some of the narratives in this chapter such as those about Aristeas clearly depict empty tombs
[…]
A fuller’s shop served as his temporary tomb when he died�

This chapter of the book puts up Aristeas as the poster child for empty tombs at the beginning, but has to make the floor of the shop where he ‘died’ into a tomb to make that work. I cannot take this source seriously.

]An extremely interesting example is the Greek novel Callirhoe by Chariton which may date to before 62 CE due to a possible mention by Persius "To them I recommend the morning's play-bill and after lunch Callirhoe" - (1,134)

Just as in the gospels, in Chariton's story, there is "the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave."

What exactly is Persius referring to? Reading a novel? Out loud? Could be, but it seems a stretch. Also, it seems that the name of the novel was really Chaereas and Callirhoe.

The date of Chariton’s story has been put anywhere from the middle of the 1st century (as per the Persius reference to the name} to the late 1st century or early 2nd century (as per vocabulary usage) to after the first quarter of the 2nd century (if the possible reference to Plutarch is genuine). Ref

But a big problem is that "the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave" does not correctly describe Mark’s narrative, which has no disbelief only fear, only the briefest ‘inspection of the empty grave’ and no further visits to the tomb. Those ideas appear in later Gospels, which can be seen to have been developed in a straight line starting from Mark. One could easily make a case that Chariton copied from the Gospels.

A Jewish "missing body" story followed by heavenly translation occurs in the Testament of Job 39:11-12 – "And they want to bury them, but I prevented them saving, do not labor in vain, for you will not find my children, because they have been taken up to heaven by their creator king."

Jesus simply fits the paradigm of other famous Jewish prophets who go missing.

Gen. 5:24 LXX
"And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him."

Hebrews 11:5
"By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and “he was not found, because God had taken him.�

Philo Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.86
'What is the meaning of the expression, "He was not found because God translated him?" (#Ge 5:24). In the first place, the end of virtuous and holy men is not death but a translation and migration, and an approach to some other place of abode.'

A search party is sent for Elijah in 2 Kings 2:16-17 but they do not find him.
"And they sent fifty men, who searched for three days but did not find him."

Josephus Antiquities 9.28
"Now at this time it was that Elijah disappeared from among men, and no one knows of his death to this very day; but he left behind him his disciple Elisha, as we have formerly declared. And indeed, as to Elijah, and as to Enoch, who was before the deluge, it is written in the sacred books that they disappeared, but so that nobody knew that they died."

On the disappearance of Moses - Josephus Antiquities 4.326
"and as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God."

Credit to u/koine_lingua for the above references.

So it seems from the numerous examples we can gather that the "missing body" and "empty tomb" motif was a sign of divine intervention/favor and was a common element in apotheosis/translation fables. Hence, we can see why the creators of the Jesus stories would be motivated to invent such a tale. If Jesus was anything special, then surely his body would have to disappear from his tomb!

None of the biblical references involve an empty tomb, the essential feature of Mark’s narrative. And no one even attempts to address the issue of where Jesus is now and how did he get there until Luke, probably fifty years after the putative timeframe. These were clearly not factors in developing Mark’s narrative about an empty tomb.

Of course we are all familiar with the Christian apologist's claim about the evidence of the empty tomb of Jesus. What evidence? Surely, a story about an empty tomb isn't enough by itself to qualify as evidence. Otherwise, you would have to believe all the above stories were evidence of their historicity as well!

Keep in mind, due to Matthew and Luke copying Mark's gospel (Markan priority) and the fact that John was written so late that the author likely had knowledge of the Markan narrative, there just is no confirmed independent testimony for the empty tomb of Jesus. All you have is a single shared story........about an empty tomb. As demonstrated, a story about x does not necessarily mean x is a historical fact.

John’s narrative incorporates numerous elements from Luke. Luke’s narrative is Matthew turned pointedly upside down in accordance with Luke’s overall agenda. Matthew’s narrative is all about covering up the suspicious nature of Mark’s narrative. Despite adding all sorts of whistles and bells to the story, often contradicting the previous one, none of them chose to throw out the empty tomb element by having somebody witness the resurrection itself. Matthew comes within a hair’s breadth of doing that but backs off from it at the last moment. The dramatic angel rolls aback the stone and reveals … an empty tomb! Why is the inherently suspicious empty tomb preserved but with all sorts of other elaborate material to distract from it?

Does anyone here dare challenge this? Can anyone give any good reasons why the empty tomb of Jesus should be considered a historical fact when all you have is the story itself? It seems to me, when arguing from a historical probability standpoint, due to "missing bodies" being an established literary motif, one can't give a probability higher than 0.5 to Jesus' empty tomb story being historical. It's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme as it is that they were reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its historicity.

Most of those ‘missing body’ stories are irrelevant. Bormus was pulled into a well by Nymphs. He did not ascend into heaven. Hamilcar drowned in a river. He did not ascend into heaven. Some of the stories post-date Mark. Some are just irrelevant. The wooden box turns out to be empty. Duh.

The simplest explanation that accounts for Mark using the empty tomb as the central theme in his narrative and also accounts for belief in an actual resurrection becoming widespread is that Mark inherited and used an early tradition about Jesus, just as he clearly did in other places, and he found that tradition more credible than Paul’s over the top witness list. And the simplest explanation for this being an early tradition is that it represents something that really happened – the body is stolen when it is known that people are going to go to the tomb to complete unfinished business and a shill is left behind to say that Jesus got up and left. The idea of Jesus rising from the dead would help turn a defeat into a moral victory and also fit neatly with the apocalyptic general resurrection ideas going around in that era.

[JehovahsWitness]

Coating the body of Jesus with such a mixture would have served to stop the process of decay for a few days, but it was not a long term preservative. This expensive process would have served no purpose if the body had been intended to have been left to decay in Joseph's tomb. However, coating the body in this manner makes perfect sense if the intention was to take the body on a journey, say to Galilee.

The spicing was part of their traditional funeral tradition so it certainly was not indicative of an intention to transport the corpes. It did not mumify the body like the Egyptian process, and from the account of Lazarus burial we know that by day four even treated body would begin to decompose. In any case the treating of the body does not indicate the intention of transportation

....friends quietly took their dead friend, along with the dead man's mother, back to the dead man's family home burial in Galilee ...

That would be most unusual and there is nothing in the narrative to indicate this. As for the logistics of transporting the body back to Galilee, if Jesus died on Friday and the first opportunity to move the body came on Saturday evening and Galillee was at least two or three days journey away, then that means they planned to transport a stinking rotting corpe in a hot climate. Bones (mostly of the rich and famous), were sometimes transported and given their final resting place, rotting corps were not. Body snatching was not a usual action, body snatching for the purpose of transporting it several days journey away, just to bury it was not normal (usual for the time).

IMO, the tomb was discovered to be empty, ... because the priests had secured a tomb that was already empty.

Well that's extremely unlikely isn't it. The Priests, fearful that Christ's followers would indeed steal the body, sent professional solders to secure the area but they failed to ensure the body was inside the tomb before securing it? Professionals that would have known that they order came from the Governor? How likely is it that they were both incompetent to that degree and had a disregard for their own lives (The Romans were not known for its lenient attitude to those that disobeyed orders)?




JW

[Clownboat]

The spicing was part of their traditional funeral tradition so it certainly was not indicative of an intention to transport the corpes. It did not mumify the body like the Egyptian process, and from the account of Lazarus burial we know that by day four even treated body would begin to decompose. In any case the treating of the body does not indicate the intention of transportation

It actually does suggest possible intent.
The quantity, 100 lbs is clearly much more than could have been placed in the linen which surrounded the body. The usual custom was to use 20 pounds.

As you suggest below, 20 lbs wouldn't have gotten them to Galilee. Perhaps they thought 100 lbs would give them a chance?

Well that's extremely unlikely isn't it. The Priests, fearful that Christ's followers would indeed steal the body, sent professional solders to secure the area but they failed to ensure the body was inside the tomb before securing it? Professionals that would have known that they order came from the Governor? How likely is it that they were both incompetent to that degree and had a disregard for their own lives (The Romans were not known for its lenient attitude to those that disobeyed orders)?

When did the priests go to Pilate to request a guard? Yup, sometime 'the next day'. That would be Saturday, the holy day. So priests went out to the closed tomb, sealed it and then set a guard. They would not enter the tomb due to prohibitions of their own laws. The seals would have been ment to insure that whatever the condition inside the tomb was, it would remain exactly in that condition until the priest could come back and inspect the tomb. The earliest that could have happened would have been on Sunday morning. Since the tomb proved to be empty on Sunday, then obviously the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it on Saturday. Heck, it was likely empty Friday night.

Rumours still spread of course and religions were created. Nothing new for humans.

[YahWhat]

The unique feature of Mark that is not mentioned in Paul is the empty tomb.

When we'd expect a mention of it since Paul was trying to convince the doubting Corinthians that there actually was a "resurrection of the dead" - v.12-25 and explain "with what type of body do they come?" v. 35. The fact that Paul doesn't mention it is good evidence that there was no such thing in the earliest strain of tradition. Moreover, it's highly unlikely that Jesus would have received a proper burial in the first place considering he was crucified by the Romans for being the "King of the Jews." Most likely, Jesus was left up to rot to serve as a warning for other would be troublemakers as was custom for crucifixion victims. This inconvenient fact speaks against your hypothesis because there's a low prior probability that Jesus' body would have even made it to a tomb in the first place.

Paul already established the burial and resurrection as essential parts of the Jesus story but gave no details concerning the resurrection except that it was on the third day.

Remember, his belief was based "on the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-4), not necessarily historical attestation.

‘Missing bodies’ is far too vague a concept to be claimed as Mark’s inspiration.

Try miraculous "missing bodies from a resting place" then you'll actually be addressing the argument. It doesn't necessarily matter where the person went missing from.

What inspired Mark to end his Gospel this way?

It's quite obvious. If Jesus was anything special then his body would have to disappear or go missing per the established pattern for heroic men. Moreover, he would be motivated to invent a proper burial in light of the fact that Jesus was most likely left up to rot on the cross and picked to the bone by birds. Obviously, Mark couldn't depict his hero Jesus suffering such a gruesome fate. Lastly, the narrative provides a convenient literal fulfillment of Isaiah 53:8-9.

No empty tomb. Unless one is obsessed with finding empty tomb stories and the floor of a fuller’s shop can double as a tomb. It is not at all clear that Aristeas even died (in the wool?) there being a witness to the contrary. And he was obviously not buried....Not relevant.

His body goes missing from his resting place just like Jesus' does. Entirely relevant.

No death, no burial, no empty tomb. Unless of course one is desperate to find empty tomb stories and a living person (supposedly) hiding in a wooden chest can double for a dead person buried in a tomb. This is not even a missing body story. It is a missing person story.

It's still a miraculous disappearance nonetheless and a "missing person" necessarily entails a missing body but if you don't want to count this one then that is fine. I was just citing Cook's quote in full.

Numa
It is only in Plutarch, who wrote his Parallel Lives at the beginning of the 2nd century, that the empty coffin story appears. Ref Livy, who wrote about Numa much earlier knows nothing of it. [Ref

Clearly not an influence on Mark.

Livy actually describes the disappearance of Numa's body but gives a natural explanation. https://books.google.com/books?id=mRJtD ... &q&f=false

Dionysus of Halicarnassus says he "disappeared from among men." https://books.google.com/books?id=xvDTA ... &q&f=false

As for Plutarch, where did he get the story from? Did he just make it up himself? No, obviously it existed before he wrote. So it's debatable if the story was in existence before Mark composed.

Alcmene
There are two versions of the story of Alcmene’s death. In one story, when Alcmene died, there was an argument over where she was to be buried, with the Oracle at Delhi specifying the place. In the other story, when she died her body turned to stone. Ref

No empty tomb. Not even a missing body.

Her body goes missing from her bier/resting place. Diodorus Siculus says she "vanished from sight." Plutarch says "the body of Alcmene disappeared as they were carrying her forth for burial, and a stone was seen lying on the bier instead." He doesn't say her body turned to stone. https://books.google.com/books?id=mRJtD ... &q&f=false

Zalmoxis
Zalmoxis built an underground dwelling where he disappeared for three years. Then he came out alive. Ref Living person seen. No empty tomb. This is the opposite of Mark.

The point is he "appears" again after people thought he had died just like in the Jesus story. I shouldn't have included that one in the "missing body" section but it's entirely relevant for the post-mortem sightings parallel.

Romulus
According to Livy, it was claimed that Romulus was snatched away by a whirlwind during a thunderstorm. Ref

Missing person. No empty tomb.

His body disappears and he ascends to heaven in a cloud which is reminiscent of Jesus' ascension - Ovid, Metamorphosis, 14.805-828 and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 2.56.2

Empty tomb, check. But this is sort of backwards from Mark. In Mark, the ‘proof’ of the resurrection is the empty tomb. Nobody sees the risen Jesus. By contrast, Philinnion is seen and the tomb is found empty later on.

Still a story about an empty tomb though, right? Are you seriously trying to find an exact match? If so, that's not the point and you're wasting your time.

Antigonus
This character appears in Lucian’s Lover of Lies, ala The Liar. Ref In this satirically humorous work, Antigonus is portrayed as an accomplished but ridiculous liar, including his story about treating a patient both before and after his death. Lover of Lies is clearly a work of humorous fiction from beginning to end. What makes it irrelevant to Mark is that Lucian lived in the 2nd century, long after Mark wrote. ref

The point is that this story establishes the literary theme existed regardless if it came after the time of Mark. While there are plenty of these stories that predate Mark the fact that some post date it is evidence that this literary theme lasted for centuries.

Proclus
In Plato’s story, Proclus did not die and was not buried. He was in a trance like state and when he talked about his soul leaving his body. Ref This allowed Plato to put his ideas about the soul in the mount of a ‘witness’

No empty tomb. Not even a burial or a missing body.

Um, "Proclus included three stories of Naumachius of Epirus who described three individuals that returned to life after various periods in their tombs (none months, fifteen days, and three days)."
https://books.google.com/books?id=mRJtD ... &q&f=false

Branchus
Although I know Branchus as the lover of Apollo (eek!), who gave Branchus prophetic powers, I am unaware of any connection between Branchus and death, tombs. Resurrection, missing bodies etc. Can anyone turn up anything relevant?

Branchus disappears. This comes from Cook's section on "translation and apotheosis."
https://books.google.com/books?id=mRJtD ... &q&f=false

Polyidus
Polyidus raised a dead child. The child had not even been buried yet. Ref

No empty tomb. No missing body.

Palaephatus says he was buried in the tomb and was raised. https://books.google.com/books?id=mRJtD ... &q&f=false

This is an example of a resurrection. It's not meant to be a missing body/empty tomb example.

Osiris in Dendera Temple complex
There are some remarkable reliefs in the Hathor Temple .in the Dendera complex. Ref Two of them depict Osiris. One shows Isis and Nephthys guarding the reassembled dead body of Osiris. There were attempts to destroy it. The other shows Isis impregnating herself with the magic phallus to replace the one that got eaten. Osiris was only alive enough and for long enough to do his part in this. Am unaware of any relief or other picture or even a myth that has Osiris come out of his tomb. Anybody?

https://live.staticflickr.com/4650/4015 ... 59a2_b.jpg
http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/3/bb ... /GW687H317

This is an example of a resurrection. It's not meant to be a missing body/empty tomb example.

Achilles
There is no empty tomb or missing body in the story of Achilles. When Achilles is killed, his mother (a Nereid, not human) takes his body from the funeral pyre and brings it home to the Blessed Isles. Ref

So his body disappears, right?

Aeneas
There are several accounts of the death of Aeneas. On is that he disappeared in the middle of a battle. Ref

No empty tomb. Just a missing person.

Yup, a missing person...just like Jesus.

Amphiaraus
Amphiaraus ticked off Zeus who threw a thunderbolt that opened the earth and swallowed Amphiaraus. Ref

No empty tomb.

Apollonius of Tyana
Philostratus wrote a book that looks amazingly like an account of the life of Jesus as recounted in the several Gospels, except that the main character( Apollonius) is Greek, not Jewish. The catch is that Philostratus wrote well after a century after the Gospels. Ref

Obviously not an influence on Mark. It would seem the arrow points in the other direction.

Basilea
Basilea disappeared in a lightning storm. Ref

No empty tomb.

Belus
The name Belus refers to a number of entities, human and divine. I am unable to connect any of them to empty tombs, missing bodies etc. Anyone?

Bormus
Bormus was pulled into a well by Nymphs. Ref

No empty tomb.

Ganymede
Zeus abducted the young boy Ganymede to be his ‘wine server’. Sure… Ref
No empty tomb.

Hamilcar
Hamilcar Barca was lost in battle, probably drowning in a river. Ref
No empty tomb.

Semiramis
Ara, the lover of the woman military leader Semiramis, was killed in battle. She disguised someone else to look like Ara and had him ride into battle with her to foster the legend that she was a sorceress who could raise the dead, demoralizing the enemy. Ref
No empty tomb.

Read the quote again. All these follow the sentence "There are numerous translation accounts of heroes in which their bodies disappear when they were either alive or dead:"

These were not intended to be presented as empty tomb stories.

The only empty tomb story in the list that pre-dates Mark is the one about Philinnion. But it is not a great fit. Philinnion is actually seen after she dies. If this were Mark’s inspiration for inventing a story about an empty tomb, why would he leave out inventing sightings? It would also require that Mark, seemingly an Aramaic speaker of Jewish background, would know this story from Greek mythology.

Nope, there's Callirhoe, Numa, Aristeas. Others are debatable and while some may not have an "empty tomb" per se, they still depict the person disappearing from their resting place or just disappearing period. That's the point and that's the parallel/mimetic signal. Jesus disappearing from his tomb simply fits the bill and established literary pattern.

Mark never has anyone see Jesus. If he invented the empty tomb stoey, why not invent witnesses?

I have no idea but that's not relevant to my argument. He clearly knows of a tradition of appearances in Galilee - Mk. 14:28, 16:7. He just doesn't narrate what they were like.

Since Mark has no witnesses to the risen Jesus, all of the references to sightings after a supposed resurrection or disappearance are not relevant to why Mark has an empty tomb story.

Mark indicates knowledge of a post-mortem sighting of Jesus but, as you said, this is not relevant. The "appearance" tradition is separate from the "empty tomb" tradition. What's relevant is Jesus' body going missing from his resting place just like all the other figures.

In any case, the source provided falls rather short of inspiring a sense of honesty and credibility.

You fell short on your research of the sources which is evident in your replies. I gave you the link to the book for Christ's sake! All you had to do was a simple keyword search and you would have been able to correctly name the sources instead of erroneously saying "the story is only found here..."

This chapter of the book puts up Aristeas as the poster child for empty tombs at the beginning, but has to make the floor of the shop where he ‘died’ into a tomb to make that work. I cannot take this source seriously.

The guy is dead and he miraculously goes missing from his resting place like all the other figures. If you can't see the parallel then you're just being dishonest. Requiring that he goes missing from a "tomb" is a red herring and what I call the "carbon copy" fallacy. Just because the stories aren't the same in every minute detail, it doesn't follow that there isn't a common overall literary theme being employed. Namely, the miraculous disappearance of a person from their resting place.

The date of Chariton’s story has been put anywhere from the middle of the 1st century (as per the Persius reference to the name} to the late 1st century or early 2nd century (as per vocabulary usage) to after the first quarter of the 2nd century (if the possible reference to Plutarch is genuine). Ref

The Persius quote dates to 62CE and most modern scholars actually date it between middle of the 1st century BCE to mid 1st century CE (don't cherry pick Wikipedia). So, given the current state of the evidence, it most likely predates Mark's composition.

But a big problem is that "the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave" does not correctly describe Mark’s narrative, which has no disbelief only fear, only the briefest ‘inspection of the empty grave’ and no further visits to the tomb. Those ideas appear in later Gospels, which can be seen to have been developed in a straight line starting from Mark. One could easily make a case that Chariton copied from the Gospels.

Ha, so one or two elements are out of place therefore all the others don't count?! We still have "the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave" The whole sequence was given because Bremmer was comparing it to the collective story in the gospels (plural!), not just Mark's narrative. But, as shown, there are still 5 key elements common among the Markan narrative and Callirhoe. So given this current state of the evidence it's just as likely that Mark was employing the theme as not. Therefore, the story itself can't be considered evidence of its own historicity.

None of the biblical references involve an empty tomb, the essential feature of Mark’s narrative.

Red herring. All those famous Jewish figures disappear or go missing. Jesus, a famous Jewish figure, simply fits the paradigm.

John’s narrative incorporates numerous elements from Luke. Luke’s narrative is Matthew turned pointedly upside down in accordance with Luke’s overall agenda. Matthew’s narrative is all about covering up the suspicious nature of Mark’s narrative. Despite adding all sorts of whistles and bells to the story, often contradicting the previous one, none of them chose to throw out the empty tomb element by having somebody witness the resurrection itself. Matthew comes within a hair’s breadth of doing that but backs off from it at the last moment. The dramatic angel rolls aback the stone and reveals … an empty tomb! Why is the inherently suspicious empty tomb preserved but with all sorts of other elaborate material to distract from it?

Is this an admission that there is absolutely no independent corroborating evidence of the empty tomb story? All the other gospels got it from Mark and expanded upon it, right? You do see how this speaks against historicity don't you?

Most of those ‘missing body’ stories are irrelevant.

There is a sufficient amount to establish a literary theme that existed before Mark wrote. That's all I have to show.

The simplest explanation that accounts for Mark using the empty tomb as the central theme in his narrative and also accounts for belief in an actual resurrection becoming widespread is that Mark inherited and used an early tradition about Jesus, just as he clearly did in other places, and he found that tradition more credible than Paul’s over the top witness list. And the simplest explanation for this being an early tradition is that it represents something that really happened – the body is stolen when it is known that people are going to go to the tomb to complete unfinished business and a shill is left behind to say that Jesus got up and left. The idea of Jesus rising from the dead would help turn a defeat into a moral victory and also fit neatly with the apocalyptic general resurrection ideas going around in that era.

As already mentioned, it's unlikely that Jesus, the crucified "King of the Jews," would have even been given a proper burial, much less one in a "rock hewn" tomb. Paul, our earliest Christian source, doesn't mention it when it would have greatly helped his argument in 1 Cor 15. There is no independent attestation of it. The story from Matthew about the Jews saying they stole the body could just be their reaction to the Markan claim of an empty tomb which was in circulation for 10 years or so before Matthew even composed his gospel.

So you still haven't shown your hypothesis that there was an actual empty tomb more probable than Mark was just employing the literary device of a "miraculous missing body."

[JehovahsWitness]

The usual custom was to use 20 pounds. As you suggest below, 20 lbs wouldn't have gotten them to Galilee. Perhaps they thought 100 lbs would give them a chance?

Do you have a support for this statement? References would be appreciated.

As you suggest below, 20 lbs wouldn't have gotten them to Galilee. Perhaps they thought 100 lbs would give them a chance?

No. What are you suggesting is the significance of the amount of spices used?



JW

[Imprecise Interrupt]

Replying to post 80 by Imprecise Interrupt]The meaning is ‘was seen’. As demonstrated above, it is not a technical term with a meaning different from the meaning of the base word horao, which is to see with the eyes, with a possible sub-text of staring (as at something unusual).

Earlier I quoted the definition which you ignored.

"horá� – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)." https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

So all those experts in Greek who surveyed all the Greek literature where horá� is used are all wrong about it often being employed "with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)"?

Gosh, how about you let all the scholars know so they can all update their lexicons? I'm sure they will be impressed with your groundbreaking discovery!

You ought to tell those experts in Greek at Biblehub to take ‘properly, see’ off the beginning of the definition and change ‘often with metaphorical meaning’ to always. And while you are at it, tell the experts in Greek at Blue Letter Bible to eliminate their #1 definition because after all it never means ‘to see with the eyes’. You see the word often but then ignore, insisting that it must be ‘with the mind’ regardless of context, even when that would destroy the meaning of what was clearly intended to be understood.

• G3708 horaÅ�
  
  Properly, to stare at
  
  I to see with the eyes
  II to see with the mind, to perceive, know

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... ongs=g3708

Hebrews 11:27
By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw (��ῶν, hor�n) him who is invisible.

Gosh, how did Moses see "what was invisible" with his eyes? That doesn't make much sense now does it?

Moses saw God in the form of the burning bush in Exodus 3. But much more interesting is the narrative in Exodus 33. The context of this passage is that God has said he will not go with the Hebrews to the Promised Land as he had in escaping from the Egyptians up until Mt. Sinai. This is because they are a ‘stiff-necked people’ and God would probably get angry and kill them all on the way.

Exodus 33
17 And the Lord said to Moses, “This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.� 18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.� 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,� he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.� 21 And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.�

Moses asked to see God to sustain his faith since God is not going with them. Moses does get to see God as a special favor but only in a limited way otherwise it would kill the viewer. This is not a vision of God, which could be tailored to be non-lethal like the burning bush or the cloud on Mt. Sinai, but the real thing and caution had to be exercised.

In my copy of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 5 under the section entitled "Usage and Concept in the Septuagint and Judaism" on page 325 it states:

"��άω and εἶδον are often used for spiritual perception."

On page 329:

"��άω and εἶδον are the characteristic words used for visionary-ecstatic prophetic seeing."

Page 330:

ὤφθη is “the characteristic term to denote the (non-visual) presence of the self-revealing God.�

It is used to denote being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception, or to the presence of God who reveals Himself in His Word. It thus seems that when ὤφθη is used to denote the resurrection appearances there is no primary emphasis on seeing as sensual or mental perception. The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, encounters with the risen Lord who reveals Himself or is revealed, cf. Gal. 1:16…..they experienced His presence.� – Pg. 358

So please, would you mind telling all the Greek experts that they're just wrong and to stop misleading the public.

Again you want ‘often’ to mean ‘always’.

And as for your hand-waving away of the use of ὤφθη in the New Testament passages:

"In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances. These include various angelic appearances - Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration- Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31, tongues of fire - Acts 2.3; Paul’s vision of a man from Macedonia - Acts 16.9, supernatural appearances of the heavenly Ark of the Covenant, a great red dragon, and a woman clothed with the sun - Rev 11.19; 12.1, 3; and appearances of God or the risen Christ - Luke 24.34; Acts 7.2; Acts 13.31; Heb 9.28; 1 Tim 3.16, and the various accounts of Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ by Luke. The only clear non-supernatural use of the verb in the NT is in Acts 7.26 where Luke narrates the appearance of Moses to two fighting Israelites (Exod 2.13). Josephus, likewise, uses the verb in describing supernatural events: the dramatic appearance of the goddess Isis; the supernatural opening of huge Temple doors;— supernatural events that take place before large numbers of people, such as the miraculous appearance of chariots and troops in armour running around in the clouds over Israel,— and a huge star resembling a sword which stood over Jerusalem." - Mark Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 107, 118.

"The LXX uses ὤφθη thirty-sex times with all but six referring to theophanic events (or angelophanies). Likewise, of the eighteen occurrences of ὤφθη in the NT, all but one refer to supernatural appearances to people." - Rob Fringer, Paul's Corporate Christophany, pg. 99.

You want supernatural to mean (only) ‘in the mind’.

The word ὤφθη, aorist passive of ��άω, can be used for seeing a vision. That does not mean that every instance of its use means that the thing being seen is not present but a vision broadcast from heaven. Being supernatural in tone does not mean that what is being seen is not there. Luke goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the dead and resurrected Jesus is really physically present in the midst of the disciples, despite this not being natural. The Transfiguration scenes are intended to be visions as indicated by everything going back to normal. Luke’s angel in 1:11 is identified as a vision in 1:22. Luke’s men/angels in 24:4 are identified as a vision in 24:23. Try engaging my specific arguments instead of misunderstanding what you are reading.

"For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him." - Philo, On Abraham 17.80

This passage in Philo references Genesis 12:7. Philo wrote in Greek and would have used the Septuagint. This is what he would have read.

καὶ ὤφθη κύ�ιος τῷ Αβ�αμ
and was-seen Lord by Abram.

That is the way Kata Biblon translates it. Ref

“and The Lord was beheld by Abram�

If it was the Lord revealing himself, the active present(narrative) 1st person singular form of ἀποκαλ�πτω (reveal) would have been used. That is true of all occurrences of ὤφθη. Supernatural? Sure. Active 1st person? No.

Philo was a Middle Platonist philosopher who insisted that Good was too ‘pure’ to get involved in the ‘impure’ real world. All depictions of God in anything resembling material form had to be metaphorical. If God was seen by Abraham, it had to be God initiating it. God was too remote (as per Platonism) to ever be accessed ‘from below’. This can be seen in verse 79 from ‘On Abraham’.

“But he, by reason of his love for mankind, did not reject the soul which came to him, but went forward to meet it, and showed to it his own nature as far as it was possible that he who was looking at it could see it.�

Back to verse 80
“displayed and revealed himself to him�

God displayed himself in physical form to Abraham in the form of the three men, who washed their feet and ate and drank. God then revealed to Abraham that amazingly his old wife Sarah was going to get pregnant. Genesis 18 Recall that although God talked to Abram/Abraham a lot before this, not until this episode is Abraham seeing God described in any detail. If Philo’s seeing is to be taken literally with respect to Genesis 18, then God took on a very physical form for the occasion and Abraham saw God with his eyes and not with his mind. If it is not to be taken literally, then there was no kind of seeing – with the eye or with the mind – before this.

God also displayed himself to Moses in physical form in Exodus 33 as previously described.

Paul says that God revealed his son to Paul. Nothing is said about the means of that revelation. And he says nothing here about seeing Jesus. I fail to see what you think this is supposed to prove.

So Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus face to face before he went to heaven? What source says that? When Paul says "God revealed His Son in me" we are supposed to believe this is a reference to Paul physically seeing Jesus with his eyes while Jesus' physically resurrected body was still located on the earth? I think not. It's quite obvious that the "revelation" is from heaven and was a personal/subjective encounter Paul was describing. Therefore, it is *impossible* that Paul saw Jesus with his eyes (since Jesus was located in heaven).

Notice how Paul uses ἀποκαλ�ψεως/ἀποκαλ�ψαι "revelation" "a revealing" in Gal. 1:12-16 which is not a verb of seeing with the eyes. Yet, he still felt comfortable using this experience as a "resurrection appearance" of Jesus in 1 Cor 15:8 where he says "Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to me." We know Gal. 1:16 and 1 Cor 15:8 are talking about the same experience because of the genetic link established by comparing Gal. 1:13 and 1 Cor 15:9. In both instances, Paul mentions persecuting the church. He ceased doing so when Jesus "was revealed" or "appeared" to him. It follows that horao and the aorist passive form ophthe can have the "spiritual revealing" connotation. So the point is that Paul uses his experience described in Gal. 1:16 as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8. It follows then, that you didn't necessarily have to see Jesus with your eyes in order to claim he "appeared" to you. Understand now?

"Since Paul here uses ἀποκαλ�ψεως and not a verb of seeing, the passage also teaches that the event is to be understood as revelation, as the disclosure of divine truth and reality. Hence this thought is present even when the verbs of seeing are used. Verbs of seeing can become terms to express the event of revelation, and they can do so in such a way that the implied reference to (more sensual or more spiritual) perception is enhanced by the concept of openness to the event of revelation. In this sense the verbs of seeing may rightly be added to the revelational verbs discussed." - TDNT vol. 5, pg. 358 .

In Acts the appearance is explicitly described as a "vision from heaven" - Acts 26:19. Since this "vision from heaven" is the "appearance" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:8, it necessarily follows that when Paul uses ὤφθη he is using it to describe a "vision."

"Now you want to equate the words ‘vision’ and ‘revelation’? Sorry, no."

Paul himself uses the terms interchangeably in 2 Cor 12:1 so, yes! Moreover, as demonstrated above, Paul uses his "revelation" of Jesus from Gal. 1:16 as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8.

You put up the strawman that Galatians 1:16 says that Paul saw Jesus and then demonstrate that this is not what he said. Galatians 1:16 has God doing the revealing to Paul that Jesus was the way to go, that he should stop persecuting followers of Jesus. If Paul just had a vison of Jesus and (as you claim) people had visions all the time, why would Paul think it was Jesus who he had never seen? The revelation from God in Galatians 1:16 is the imparting of knowledge from God to Paul concerning who Jesus really is.

Galatians 1
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

To preach Jesus would require knowing things about him. A mere vision is not going to do that. A revelation, the imparting of knowledge, would be needed. Since it is God doing the revealing, did Paul see God? Notice how Paul stresses that he did not get this knowledge about Jesus from anyone else. It is knowledge he is talking about, not a vision.

Galatians 1:16 is not related to Paul having a vision and getting special knowledge (revelation) from Jesus in the third heaven as described in 2 Corinthians 12. Seeing Jesus and getting special knowledge from him are not the same thing. Paul need to get one-up on the very respected apostles in 2 Corinthians 11 who were contradicting him concerning the Law. Jesus told Paul the ‘right stuff’ in person. Going to the third heaven would certainly be an impressive supernatural event. Using the word for witnessing impressive supernatural things, like the dead Jesus talking and eating as in Luke 24, would be perfectly natural. But the important point is not what he sees (with eyes of mind, Paul is not sure) but that he is told things that even the ‘very chiefest’ apostles were not told, Having this be merely a ‘vision’ in the sense of imaginary would destroy Paul’s argument against what those apostles said. This has to be taken as real or it does not work.

Vision and revelation necessarily have different meanings in 2 Corinthians 12 or Paul’s argument carries no weight.

The witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15 did not get any special theological treatises from Jesus. They saw the risen Jesus in the flesh with their eyes and stared, that being the root meaning of horao, as documented above. Paul saw Jesus in the third heaven ‘as one untimely born’ not being on board early enough to get to see the resurrected Jesus in the flesh so he had to come up with going to the third heaven.

Acts has nothing to do with any of this. Acts is all about coverups. Having Paul in possession of knowledge from Jesus that the Apostles did not have was a big problem. Did Jesus [i[forget[/i] to tell the Apostles? Acts conflates Galatians 1:16 (God telling Paul about Jesus) and 2 Corinthians 12 (Jesus getting special knowledge from Jesus) into Saul/Paul getting dramatically knocked down and blinded and then getting converted into an already fully formed Christianity. And then repeating the story twice more so it sinks in. Acts has no bearing on what Paul meant.

And the question that never gets answered is if Paul is talking about a spiritual resurrection, how can that be reconciled with saying “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day�.

It's a four line formula:

1. Jesus died.
2. He was buried.
3. He was raised.
4. He appeared.

The actions in the 2nd and 4th lines correspond to the claims made in the 1st and 3rd. The "burial" proves he was dead. The "appearances" prove he was "was raised." Understood this way, the creed says absolutely nothing about a physical resurrection. It does not follow that a corpse literally walked out of a tomb. You're reading that into the text because being "raised" is ambiguous and can be interpreted different ways. It doesn't say what object actually is raised nor does it specify where Jesus (the person, whatever form he took) was raised to.

The four line formula is

1. Jesus died.
2. He was buried.
3. He was raised on the third day
4. He was seen with the witnesses staring with their eyes as per the definition above.

Why would the spirit get buried and hang around until the third day?

Did I ever say the "spirit gets buried" or is that your strawman? Jesus was believed to be in Sheol and then was "raised/exalted" straight to heaven. There, he received a new "spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-10) and "appeared/was revealed" spiritually to his followers.

1 Peter 3 is not about Jesus going to Sheol, where the dead sleep until Judgment Day. It is about going to the Hades described in 1 Enoch where the fallen angels are imprisoned “because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared�. (1 Peter 3:20) That obviously does not refer to the souls of the righteous who are now allowed into heaven, as per the usual ‘harrowing of hell’ scenario. To understand 1 Peter one must delve into 1 Enoch. (In particular, to appreciate what us being said in 1 Peter 3, one must understand the elaborate chiastic structure employed in that passage.)

In any case, this is not at all any part of Paul’s story, which remember he made up. Neither is it any part of any other part of the NT. Earlier the sites you linked had it that Jesus ascended to heaven immediately from the cross. And also that the physical portrayal of the risen Jesus in the Gospels was a later addition. Now you have it that he spends some time in Sheol where everyone is asleep (as per Paul) before ascending to heaven on the third day because a much later and minor work seems to suggest it. And that is not even what 1 Peter is talking about. There is no reason at all for Paul to have had any such thing in mind. Paul did not mean a deferred ascension in spirit. He meant a physical resurrection.

The claim that the people back then could not tell the difference between visions and the real thing is often made but never backed up with substantial evidence.

"In Acts 10.10-17; 11.5-10, another of Christianity’s early leaders, Peter, is presented as experiencing visions. Peter sees his vision of a heavenly sheet while in a “trance�, and interprets its symbolic meaning as annulling the kosher laws. Peter simply accepts that what he sees during a vision must convey some real message from the divine realm. Conversely, in Acts 12.9, Peter claims that his escape from prison was facilitated by instructions he received from an angel. But significantly, Peter cannot determine whether the angelic instructions and his own escape were real or part of a vision. Grappling under a different conception of the boundaries between reality and nonreality, vision and waking life, Peter finally concludes that both the prison escape and the angel must have been real." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011/04 ... urrection/

There you have it. An example from the New Testament where one of the earliest eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ is said to have trouble distinguishing his vision from reality. QED.

Acts 10:17 Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean

Peter does not doubt the reality of what he saw. He has a problem understanding it. God just told him that kosher law is thrown out the window. A key element of Mosaic Law that Peter was brought up to is suddenly no longer applicable? This is Luke covering up the problem of Paul criticizing Peter for siding with the ‘circumcision group’ concerning kosher dietary law in Galatians 2. Luke has God tell Peter kosher dietary law is kaput. For Peter to be uncertain about whether it was real or imaginary would remove all meaning from the episode. But of course it does not say any such thing as I have quoted. Note that Luke has Peter repeat this in Acts 11, just like he has Paul’s conversion story repeated to drive it home, it being after all a contradiction of what Paul really said.

Acts 12
6 Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison. 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.� And the chains fell off his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.� And he did so. And he said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.� 9 And he went out and followed him. He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them of its own accord, and they went out and went along one street, and immediately the angel left him. 11 When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.�

Peter was sleeping, and suddenly saw this angel. The chains fall off him and the angel told him to get dressed. Peter thought he was dreaming. That is, until he was fully awake and realized this was all real.

BTW the word used for seeing ΒΛΕΠΕΙ� is the indicative present(narrative) active of ΒΛΕΠΩ, another word for ‘to see’. ὤφθη was not used. And nothing was ‘revealed’ to Peter. I previously pointed out some instances of what were clearly visions but they also different words. There are others as well that I may get around to. Not ‘characteristic’ after all, is it?

Very poor examples.

The intended meaning of the word used in 1 Corinthians 15 is the question. You count those instances as ‘proof’ of the meaning of the word by assuming they mean what you want them to mean. That is not valid argumentation.

For the 1 Corinthians 15 to be suspected of being visions sent from heaven without them being identified as visions and the witnesses not being aware that they are just visions, we need to see other uses of the word where that interpretation also can be applied. That is the contention at stake.

Excuse me? What was the appearance to Paul like per the New Testament records? Did he meet the physically resurrected Jesus and touch him or did he have a vision/revelation of him from heaven?

In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul went to heaven where he met Jesus. No vision of Jesus from heaven. But a revelation from Jesus about what the real deal is, which is not what those stupid disciples were saying.

This is what leads to changing Paul’s made up story he meant to be taken literally by his readers into people having visions (including 500 identical and simultaneous ones), who then say they were only having visions and Paul then repeating that they were only having visions, despite this destroying the argument he is trying to make.

Already addressed this. The appearance to the 500 could have been nothing more than a shared mass ecstatic worship experience like people have in Pentecostal churches today. It doesn't follow that they physically saw the Risen Jesus standing in front of them or all had "individual visions" of him. Plenty of groups of people claim to have "experienced" Jesus without actually seeing him and, as I've demonstrated, the word ὤφθη can carry the meaning of just "experiencing the presence" of God or Jesus.

Paul says that the risen Jesus was seen by “more than five hundred brothers at one time� (1 Cor 15:6). Not individually, together. For Paul to have meant that they saw Jesus ‘in their minds’ and not with their eyes would require that they all have the same vision at the same time and report it to someone as seeing it in their minds but not with their eyes and that it was then reported to Paul (who was not there} as them seeing it in their minds but not with their eyes and then for Paul to tell the Corinthians that they were seeing it in their minds and not with their eyes. And this is when Paul has been contradicted on the matter. There is not a snowball’s chance that he would be believed. If he meant that the 500 people (and the various other important personages) really saw a resurrected Jesus in the flesh, now he might get somewhere.

And again, the Corinthians would not have the vaguest notion about the alleged trip to Sheol (which 1 Peter did not say anyway and does not appear anywhere until a long time later) and somehow connect it to Jesus being raised on the third day. That clearly being the case, ‘raised on the third day’ following ‘was buried’ is going to be interpreted as a physical bodily resurrection. Paul meant for the Corinthians to understand it that way.

The truth is, nobody reported anything of the sort. Paul made it up, at least the huge witness list part, as evidenced by none of the Gospels picking up this full-blown story, despite Mark and Luke (at least) definitely having read 1 Corinthians.

In the link I provided yesterday about Philinnion, this comment was offered about the enormous number of people who saw her walking around after she was dead in that story.

“Theologian Deborah Prince writes, "the truth of the tale of Philinnion, a young woman who secretly met with a young man at night after she had died and been buried, is asserted most strongly by means of the multiplication of witnesses in increasingly large numbers" (27). This technique in ancient storytelling, Prince points out, is quite common in ancient writings concerning mirabilia (wondrous events or miracles) to encourage acceptance of the story by a reader.�
https://www.ancient.eu/article/763/an-a ... -machates/

While we are on 1 Corinthians 15, take note that Paul describes resurrection as the dead buried becoming a transformed immortal body.

1 Corinthians 15
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?� 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
[…]
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
[…]
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.�
55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?�

[Clownboat]

The usual custom was to use 20 pounds. As you suggest below, 20 lbs wouldn't have gotten them to Galilee. Perhaps they thought 100 lbs would give them a chance?

Do you have a support for this statement? References would be appreciated.

This amount of burial myrrh and aloes would have been an extreme amount even for a wealthy person. The usual custom was to use 20 pounds.
https://www.preachit.org/newsletters/article/181

Nicodemus brought enough of these expensive embalming materials for use in a hundred or more common Jewish burials.
http://www.bibleresearch.org/observancebook5/b5w79.html

As you suggest below, 20 lbs wouldn't have gotten them to Galilee. Perhaps they thought 100 lbs would give them a chance?

No. What are you suggesting is the significance of the amount of spices used?

You failed to faulsify my observation (that 20lbs would not have gotten them to Gallilee, but perhaps they hoped 100lbs would have done the trick). Therefore, it is still a possibility that such a large amount was used to then get the body to its natural burial place of Gallilee. A body being buried where expected makes more sense then a body reanimating after 3 days dead obviously.