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]

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

"Throughout the writings of Flavius Josephus there are a number of references to dream experiences. Many of these are reports of dream theophanies where the human recipient either hears a message or sees a vision which significantly affects his or her actions. Josephus appears to report these dream experiences according to the literary conventions of his age." - Robert Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, pg. 129.

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.

The evidence is in the Old Testament where dreams are equated with visions or people "see" visions in a dream.

Numbers 12:6
And he said, Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.

Job 33:15
In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds,

Daniel 7:1-2
In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter. Daniel declared, I saw in my vision by night, and behold...

The choice word for dreams and dream-visions in the LXX is - something seen in sleep, i.e. a dream (vision in a dream):"dream. -, , ( and , what appears in sleep; from Aeschylus down), a dream (Latin insomnium), a vision which presents itself to one in sleep: Acts 2:17, on which passage see .

Some Greek literature examples - A. thing seen in sleep, in appos. with , a dream from the gods, a vision in sleep, came to me, Od.14.495, Il.2.56; the vision of a dream, Hdt.8.54.

So I think that settles that.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

G3708 hora

Properly, to stare at

I to see with the eyes
II to see with the mind, to perceive, know

The fact of the matter is that hora was used for both physical seeing and spiritual seeing. You no longer get to dishonestly pretend it was exclusively used only for the "physical" type of seeing with the eyes. The definition and scholarly sources from Greek experts have been slam dunked right in front of your face! Time to just admit you were wrong and move on.

I said from the beginning that the primary meaning is to see with the eyes

Post 75
The word used for he appeared is indicative, aorist, passive 3rd person singular of whose primary meaning is to see with the eyes. The KJV renders this as the more literal but awkward was seen of Cephas etc.

Post 78
The primary meaning of horao is to see with the eyes. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... ongs=g3708

You are the one who wants it to mean see with the mind whenever possible. What it does mean is to see something unusual, something stare-worthy, which is what all those Greek experts have been saying. But to claim that it means see with the mind when it is offered as proof of something having happened being offered to a skeptical audience is a non-starter. Nobody would believe it. Yet unless Paul convinces them that the resurrection really happened, his preaching is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14) He means physical resurrection. Why would he mean anything less? After all, he made it up just like the third heaven thing.

I have noticed that when you have no real counter-argument that you start accusing me of dishonesty and using phrases like hand waving and slam dunk (not a good phrase to use considering its famous misuse). Just sayin

You put up the strawman that Galatians 1:16 says that Paul saw Jesus and then demonstrate that this is not what he said.

What strawman? Gal. 1:16 is the exact same experience Paul references in 1 Cor 15:8 when he says "Jesus appeared to me." Have you discovered some other source where the appearance to Paul was not a vision or a revelation?

Earlier, you wrote this.

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.

Which is precisely the point! Paul does not say he "saw" Jesus with his eyes! His "resurrection appearance" was by means of a "revelation" which took place while Jesus was believed to be located in heaven. How exactly do you physically see a person who is located in heaven with your eyes? Since Paul's experience did not rely on "physically seeing" the resurrected Jesus standing in front of him, it follows that "revelations," otherwise known as completely subjective experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality, qualified as "resurrection appearances." Otherwise, Paul wouldn't have included his completely subjective "revelation" of Jesus as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8.

This obviously was not a "physical seeing" of Jesus, yet Paul could still claim Jesus "appeared" (-) to him which demonstrates exactly what you said I have to prove. You said I needed to show an instance where -/horao was used in a way that was not a "physical seeing" with the eyes. Well, Paul using his completely subjective "revelation" as a "resurrection appearance" does that. Game over.

Paul offers the 500+ witnesses as resurrection appearances, then qualifies himself as having seen Jesus as to one untimely born (1 Cor 15:8) He was not there to witness a resurrected Jesus as those (alleged) witnesses were. He saw Jesus in the third heaven as he says in 2 Cor 12. (Jacking up the story because some real Apostles showed up in Corinth and contradicted him about the Law.) If there was no difference in how Paul saw Jesus, why would he need to quality it as something different? Paul is saying that all those people saw a real physical resurrected Jesus and he is trying to climb on the bandwagon.

And when Paul claims to have seen Jesus in the third heaven, which as I have shown was thought of as a very physical place, Paul says that he is not sure if it was in the body or not. This is a way of further connecting his (alleged) experience to the with the eyes experience he very clearly intends for all those witnesses, without which he would be laughed out of court, as the saying goes. (They saw Jesus with their minds S-u-u-u-r-r-re they did.)

To preach Jesus would require knowing things about him. A mere vision is not going to do that.

Then why does Acts 26:19 say precisely that?
So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven."

Now you can play the game of "but that comes from Acts" but the point is the author depicts Paul becoming convinced by a "vision." It necessarily follows, then, that it was believed by these ancient people and authors that "visions" could convince people.

In Acts, Paul got knocked down and blinded and told he was backing the wrong horse. That is not just a vision. It is a rather convincing one. Were the 500+ witnesses knocked down and blinded and told something by a loud voice? No? Then what convinced them? It had to be seeing with their eyes someone they knew was dead and buried walking around. Seeing something in their minds is not going to cut it. And Paul saying they only saw it with their minds is definitely not going to cut it with an audience already skeptical of his claims.

And why can't a "vision" of Jesus include a "revelation" or teaching from him as well? There is no contradiction there and ancient Jewish people wouldn't have necessarily made a distinction between visions/revelations. That's exactly why we see Paul using the terms interchangeably in 2 Cor 12:1.

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.

Your imagined and contrived distinction between a "revelation" and a "vision" is just a red herring. The point is that these were subjective experiences which did not necessarily rely on "physical seeing" with your eyes. It doesn't matter if Paul would have considered his "revelation" as a "vision" or not. They're both not dependent upon the physical sensory type of seeing.

The terms are not being used interchangeably. Did the 500+ witnesses get given secret knowledge that nobody else got? The vision was something very unusual. A visit to the third heaven. The revelation was the special knowledge.

The distinction between revelation and vision is not at all imagined, contrived or a red herring. I showed you the meaning of the Greek words and how those meaning fit neatly in context. As with your previous over the top comments, this appears to be another demonstration that you do not have an effective counter-argument and need to resort to this sort of thing. Whether it was with the eyes or not depends on whether Paul went to the third heaven in the body or not, a point he is deliberately cagey about. He needed to ramp up his authority because real Apostles showed up and contradicted him. Now it is not just having seen Jesus (in some different manner than all those witnesses who saw with their eyes the risen Jesus walking around in his body) but getting a private tutorial in the third heaven. BTW the word hora does not appear in 2 Corinthians 12. You cannot conflate all these words when I have shown you that they do not have the same meanings and then demonstrated that in the context of their uses.

Let's put this into a simple logical syllogism:

1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" (-) to him - 1 Cor 15:8.
2. The "appearance" to Paul was a "revelation" which took place while Jesus was believed to be in heaven (Gal. 1:12-16). Acts 26:19 explicitly calls it a "vision from heaven." (The point is this experience was not a physical seeing with the eyes).
3. Paul uses his vision/revelation of Jesus as a "resurrection appearance" (since he includes it in the list of resurrection appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8).
4. Therefore, it follows that visions/revelations (personal subjective experiences that don't depend on physical eyesight) counted as "resurrection appearances."

QED.

Paul says Jesus was seen by him in a different manner than all those witnesses. 1 Cor 15:8

The revelation to Paul took place in the third heaven as per 2 Cor 12. Paul was told things that even the Apostles were not told. Gal 1 says that God revealed (gave knowledge about) Jesus to Paul. No mention of third heaven or seeing Jesus.

Acts intentionally portrays this in a totally different manner to steer away from Paul having said he got private information from Jesus, a serious embarrassment to the idea of an Apostolic based church. What words Luke used have no bearing on what Paul meant.

Paul never says he saw the risen Jesus in person on earth. He deliberately distinguishes his experience as being of a different kind because he was not around when Jesus rose from the dead.

Paul making this distinction and being ambiguous about in the body or not in the body Third Heaven experience points very clearly to the 500+ witnesses (allegedly) seeing Jesus with their eyes and Paul trying to justify his (alleged) experience being just as good so he can argue against even real Apostles.

53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

I'm not interested in going down this rabbit hole but I will note that the Greek in verse 53 does not have the word for "body" (soma) so that is a misleading translation. There are different interpretations of 1 Cor 15 and I'm quite familiar with them. Paul definitely believed there were different "types" of bodies and exactly what he meant by a "spiritual body" is not made clear. The English rendering of "it" in 1 Cor 15:42-44 is not necessitated by the Greek text. A much more suitable subject is "[one of] the dead" since the previous subject in verse 42 is "the dead." Please see Adela Yarbro Collins here on page 125 for her take on the Greek. Moreover, Paul gives absolutely no evidence that this "spiritual body" was raised to and stayed on the earth to walk around and then only later float to heaven.

The ESV translates it this way.
1 Corinthians 15
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Why does the ESV translate it that way?

" " " "
Must for* the(definite article) corruptible(adjective) this to-be-putting-on incorruption(noun) and the(definite article) mortal(adjective) this to-be-putting-on immortality(noun)
* Conjunction is second place in a clause as usual

The use of a definite article and an adjective implies a noun.

For the corruptible (implied noun) must be putting on incorruption and the mortal (implied noun) putting on immortality.

Gee, what noun do you think Paul was implying? What is it that is corruptible and mortal? ESV supplies body as the implied noun.

1 Corinthians 15
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.

Paul uses the word soma (body) 10 times in this passage including in 15:44 where it is used twice. To insist that Paul is not talking about a body in 15:53 is just weird. Unless of course you can find some other suitable noun that can be described as corruptible and mortal that at the resurrection of the dead will put on incorruption and immortality? No dancing around or links to someplace else. Just supply a noun.

Your link says that there is no connection between the seed and the plant that grows from it, that there is a discontinuity between them. Am I supposed to take this seriously?

Aside: On another site years ago, someone did try to argue that the people back then were so stupid (his word) that they did not know that plants came from seeds. That all the talk connecting sowing and raising were mere coincidence. Like 5000 years of agriculture taught them nothing.

Pauls audience would have understood very clearly that the references to sowing seeds and sowing bodies and plants coming from seeds and corruptible/mortal dead bodies being raised and putting on incorruptibility and Immortality are talking about physical resurrection.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

This is in reply to the fifth link provided by Yahwhat in a previous post. PART 4
Many of these points have been addressed in previous posts but I will repeat as needed.

Common Christian Objections

Most of the objections to this argument fall into the following three categories:

To be clear, I do not believe the resurrection ever took place. It is the vision/hallucination claim that I am arguing against. My proposal is that the body of Jesus was stolen and someone said Jesus rose from the dead and (conveniently) left town, and that Mark received this story along with other early traditions.

• "Hallucinations don't explain the resurrection."

It's important to note here that the word "hallucination" isn't found in our Biblical texts. That is a modern word that we import on ancient culture. The Biblical texts use the words "vision" and "revelation." "Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture, in which people believed that people saw appearances of God and angels, and had visions and dreams in which God and angels appeared to them." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011/04 ... urrection/ There are famous visions in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, 1 Enoch, etc that would have been well known to the Jews in Jesus' day so calling the appearances of Jesus "visions" would not be foreign considering the cultural background. Even in the NT there are plenty of visions mentioned. Of course, these days it's quite difficult to take anyone's spiritual visionary experience seriously. This becomes immediately obvious when apologists vehemently argue against the notion that the appearances of Jesus were just mere visions (obviously they don't take visions seriously either which is ironic considering both the OT and NT have numerous passages where people experience "visions"). Unfortunately, that's what the earliest source for Jesus' resurrection says they were and the Jewish background provides a foundation for these type of beliefs to arise.

Hallucinations, seeing with the mind, would convince no one who already had problems with the story, like the Corinthians. Paul must have intended them to believe that all those people really saw Jesus with their eyes.

I have yet to see any evidence of this alleged visionary culture claim. What was previously given made no sense. Peter woke up to find something outrageous going on, He thought he was dreaming. It turned out he was not. It was real. Peter in a trance was told by God that Kosher dietary law was no longer an obligation. This was Lukes way of reconciling Pauls anti-Law stance and the obvious pro-Law stance of the early church. Acts is full of that sort of cover-up. And both of these were fictional anyway. The visions in the scriptures are quite rare and very special, usually restricted to prophets, who were themselves quite rare and very special. Where is there evidence that people in general were often subject to visions? And explain what good that would do in convincing the Corinthians.

• "Resurrection was always physical, meaning it involved bringing corpses back to life."

This is false. Jewish belief in resurrection was actually quite diverse. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. Upon actually investigating the Jewish sources that mention resurrection it becomes immediately apparent that:

(a) There are very few sources that even mention it.

And

(b) There are some sources which exclude the resurrection of the body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12.

See pages 31-40 for an overview of the sources. https://books.google.com/books?id=z-VcB ... &q&f=false

Jubilees 23 is about the future age happening on earth to be enjoyed by those who will be alive at the time. It follows the older national salvation concept rather than the newer individual salvation concept. As in Malachi, obedience to the Law is seen as a way to return to the favor of the Lord and institute something like the messianic age, although there is no explicit Messiah reference. There is no mention of resurrection of any kind here.

Jubilees 23
22 And a great punishment shall befall the deeds of this generation from the Lord, and He will give them over to the sword and to judgment and to captivity, and to be plundered and devoured.
23 And He will wake up against them the sinners of the Gentiles, who have neither mercy nor compassion, and who shall respect the person of none, neither old nor young, nor any one, for they are more wicked and strong to do evil than all the children of men.
And they shall use violence against Israel and transgression against Jacob,
And much blood shall be shed upon the earth,
And there shall be none to gather and none to bury.
24 In those days they shall cry aloud,
And call and pray that they may be saved from the hand of the sinners, the Gentiles;
But none shall be saved.
25 And the heads of the children shall be white with grey hair,
And a child of three weeks shall appear old like a man of one hundred years,
And their stature shall be destroyed by tribulation and oppression.
26 And in those days the children shall begin to study the laws,
And to seek the commandments,
And to return to the path of righteousness.
27 And the days shall begin to grow many and increase amongst those children of men
Till their days draw nigh to one thousand years.
And to a greater number of years than (before) was the number of the days.
28 And there shall be no old man
Nor one who is <not> satisfied with his days,
For all shall be (as) children and youths.
29 And all their days they shall complete and live in peace and in joy,
And there shall be no Satan nor any evil destroyer;
For all their days shall be days of blessing and healing.
30 And at that time the Lord will heal His servants,
And they shall rise up and see great peace,
And drive out their adversaries.
32 And the righteous shall see and be thankful,
And rejoice with joy for ever and ever,
And shall see all their judgments and all their curses on their enemies.
33 And their bones shall rest in the earth,
And their spirits shall have much joy,
And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment,
And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him

Daniel 12
1 At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

1 Enoch was written by different people over a period of time, expressing a variety of viewpoints about the afterlife. Chapter 51 is part of the second part, the Book of Parables, aka Similitudes.

1 Enoch 51 speaks plainly of a physical bodily resurrection. Notice that the earth will give back what can only be bodies and Sheol giving up souls. Hell is mentioned separately and was previously described in Parables as the place of torment for the unrighteous. The reunited bodies and souls of the righteous will walk and dwell on the earth. This is plainly physical resurrection at the eschaton.

1 Enoch 51
1 And in those days shall the earth also give back that which has been entrusted to it, And Sheol also shall give back that which it has received, And hell shall give back that which it owes.

5a For in those days the Elect One shall arise, 2 And he shall choose the righteous and holy from among them: For the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved.

3 And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne, And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel: For the Lord of Spirits hath given (them) to him and hath glorified him.

4 And in those days shall the mountains leap like rams, And the hills also shall skip like lambs satisfied with milk, And the faces of [all] the angels in heaven shall be lighted up with joy.

5b And the earth shall rejoice, And the righteous shall dwell upon it, And the elect shall walk thereon. [/color=blue]

Chapter 103 and 104 of 1 Enoch fall in the Book of Dream Visions section. It is similar in some ways to Chapter 51, in that there will be a reward for the righteous, and also that the unrighteous are punished painfully beginning immediately at death. The reward for the righteous is in heaven and therefore presumably in spirit form, unlike chapter 51.

However, some mysteries remain. Referring to the day of great judgement (104:5) certainly sounds eschatological. Yet the eternal judgement shall be far from you (the righteous) for all the generations of the world. The world will continue after the great judgement?

In addition, it is said of the unrighteous that their souls will be made to descend into Sheol And they shall be wretched in their great tribulation. (103:7) If the souls of the unrighteous are put in Sheol at the end of days, where were they in the meantime?

It could be argued that this version of the afterlife has the righteous go to heaven and the unrighteous go to hell immediately at death and there is no resurrection separate from that. That would make the day of judgement the day of death. It is not clear what is intended here.

It is hard to connect this with Paul both because of the ambiguity and because makes not mention at all of the fate of the unrighteous, concentrating on life for the righteous, with the implication that the unrighteous will not be resurrected in any form.

1 Enoch
[Chapter 103]

1 Now, therefore, I swear to you, the righteous, by the glory of the Great and Honoured and 2 Mighty One in dominion, and by His greatness I swear to you. I know a mystery And have read the heavenly tablets, And have seen the holy books, And have found written therein and inscribed regarding them:

3 That all goodness and joy and glory are prepared for them, And written down for the spirits of those who have died in righteousness, And that manifold good shall be given to you in recompense for your labours, And that your lot is abundantly beyond the lot of the living.

4 And the spirits of you who have died in righteousness shall live and rejoice, And their spirits shall not perish, nor their memorial from before the face of the Great One Unto all the generations of the world: wherefore no longer fear their contumely.

5 Woe to you, ye sinners, when ye have died, If ye die in the wealth of your sins, And those who are like you say regarding you: ' Blessed are the sinners: they have seen all their days.

6 And how they have died in prosperity and in wealth, And have not seen tribulation or murder in their life; And they have died in honour, And judgement has not been executed on them during their life."

7 Know ye, that their souls will be made to descend into Sheol And they shall be wretched in their great tribulation.

8 And into darkness and chains and a burning flame where there is grievous judgement shall your spirits enter; And the great judgement shall be for all the generations of the world. Woe to you, for ye shall have no peace.

9 Say not in regard to the righteous and good who are in life: " In our troubled days we have toiled laboriously and experienced every trouble, And met with much evil and been consumed, And have become few and our spirit small.

10 And we have been destroyed and have not found any to help us even with a word: We have been tortured [and destroyed], and not hoped to see life from day to day.

11 We hoped to be the head and have become the tail: We have toiled laboriously and had no satisfaction in our toil; And we have become the food of the sinners and the unrighteous, And they have laid their yoke heavily upon us.

12 They have had dominion over us that hated us and smote us; And to those that hated us we have bowed our necks But they pitied us not.

13 We desired to get away from them that we might escape and be at rest, But found no place whereunto we should flee and be safe from them.

14 And are complained to the rulers in our tribulation, And cried out against those who devoured us, But they did not attend to our cries And would not hearken to our voice.

15 And they helped those who robbed us and devoured us and those who made us few; and they concealed their oppression, and they did not remove from us the yoke of those that devoured us and dispersed us and murdered us, and they concealed their murder, and remembered not that they had lifted up their hands against us.

[Chapter 104]

1 I swear unto you, that in heaven the angels remember you for good before the glory of the Great 2 One: and your names are written before the glory of the Great One. Be hopeful; for aforetime ye were put to shame through ill and affliction; but now ye shall shine as the lights of heaven, 3 ye shall shine and ye shall be seen, and the portals of heaven shall be opened to you. And in your cry, cry for judgement, and it shall appear to you; for all your tribulation shall be visited on the 4 rulers, and on all who helped those who plundered you. Be hopeful, and cast not away your hopes for ye shall have great joy as the angels of heaven. What shall ye be obliged to do Ye shall not have to hide on the day of the great judgement and ye shall not be found as sinners, and the eternal 6 judgement shall be far from you for all the generations of the world. And now fear not, ye righteous, when ye see the sinners growing strong and prospering in their ways: be not companions with them, 7 but keep afar from their violence; for ye shall become companions of the hosts of heaven. And, although ye sinners say: " All our sins shall not be searched out and be written down," nevertheless 8 they shall write down all your sins every day. And now I show unto you that light and darkness, 9 day and night, see all your sins. Be not godless in your hearts, and lie not and alter not the words of uprightness, nor charge with lying the words of the Holy Great One, nor take account of your 10 idols; for all your lying and all your godlessness issue not in righteousness but in great sin. And now I know this mystery, that sinners will alter and pervert the words of righteousness in many ways, and will speak wicked words, and lie, and practice great deceits, and write books concerning 11 their words. But when they write down truthfully all my words in their languages, and do not change or minish ought from my words but write them all down truthfully -all that I first testified 12 concerning them. Then, I know another mystery, that books will be given to the righteous and the 13 wise to become a cause of joy and uprightness and much wisdom. And to them shall the books be given, and they shall believe in them and rejoice over them, and then shall all the righteous who have learnt therefrom all the paths of uprightness be recompensed.'

After Paul's mystical/spiritual Jewish Jesus made it's way to the gentiles, they took the story and ran with it, turning him into an immortal Greco-Roman god over time.

Paul very clearly has Jesus be an immortal divine figure right from the beginning, using Philos notion, which he explicitly connects to a number of times. Philippians 2, discussed at length further below, shows that clearly as does Jesus as the creator of the world in Colossians 1, previously discussed in this Topic. And let us not forget that Mark has Jesus go, not to Olympus or the Blessed Isles or the Great Beyond, but to Galilee where people are supposed to meet him. Hardly a Greco-Roman kind of god. Not that an Aramaic speaking Jew who was quite poor in Greek would know anything about that sort of thing anyway.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

This is in reply to the fifth link provided by Yahwhat in a previous post. PART 5
Many of these points have been addressed in previous posts but I will repeat as needed.

• "Paul says Jesus had a body."

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are earthly/natural and those that are heavenly/spiritual. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. These "other/spiritual bodies" were in heaven which would explain why Paul says Jesus was experienced through visions and not physical interactions with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life on earth. So even if the Resurrected Jesus "had a body" of some sort it does not follow that this body was believed to have been on earth or physically interacted with at all. When Paul says "Jesus was raised" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form. The earliest view of Jesus' resurrection involved his simultaneous exaltation to heaven or exaltation right after the resurrection - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23, 2.6-7, 4.7-10; Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9.

Pauls imagery of plants being buried in order to be transformed into their new body and using that same imagery of sown and raised concerning the resurrection of the dead points directly to Pauls take on resurrection being from the grave, but transformed into something new as a seed is transformed into a plant.

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. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
[]
51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Also recall that Paul says that Jesus was buried and raised on third day, (1 Cor. 15:4) The immediate connection between being buried and being raised sounds very much like a bodily resurrection was intended to be understood. The body of Jesus is buried. The body of Jesus is raised on the third day. If it is just the spirit that is raised to heaven, why the delay?

2 Corinthians 5
1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened"not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

This is in accordance with 1 Corinthians 15:53 this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. This is a physical resurrection.

Lets put those cited passages in context.

Romans 8
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died"more than that, who was raised"who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The point that Paul is making is that Jesus is interceding for us with God. Jesus who was willing to die for us to redeem us from the sin of Adam by dying and then rising from the dead as proof that we too can be resurrected. Paul also does not mention that Jesus was born of a woman, a very important point in making Jesus the humble servant who came from heaven without which his death is meaningless. So that did not happen, right? Paul also does not mention that Jesus will come back at the end of days to raise the faithful from their graves as per 1 Cor 15. So tear up 1 Cor. Paul did not mean that stuff after all. What about being buried and raised on the third day? Obviously physical. But wait, we already tore up 1 Cor. [/facetiousness]

Paul said what he needed to say to make his point. Jesus is on our side and interceding for us. Why would he need to say more and confuse that point? Quote mining like this is ludicrous.

Romans 10
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or Who will descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Was the spirit of Jesus dead when God raised it from the dead? No, the body was. God raised the body of Jesus from the dead. Jesus, who came from heaven, portrayed as just going back to heaven would not be offering anything to the believer. Jesus raised bodily from the dead and seen by a bunch of witnesses, as Paul claims, is proof that resurrection and eternal life is possible.

Quote mining can be counterproductive when the miner does not even read what is being said.

BTW this passage references Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 30
12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

Note that the word Paul uses for abyss can refer to the depths of the sea or deep in the ground.

Deuteronomy was referring to the Law. Paul is referring to faith, which supplants the Law.

Ephesians 1
15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Again, raised from the dead. Was the spirit of Jesus dead? Note the reference to the Kenosis Hymn in Philippians 2. It is the greatness of the power of God toward those who believe that assure them of their hope that they will be resurrected in the future.

Ephesians 2
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ"by grace you have been saved" 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the comig ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Were the faithful that Paul was writing to when Paul wrote already seated in heavenly places when Paul wrote? Obviously not. Paul is talking about the eternal life that is now available to the righteous at the resurrection as promised by the resurrection of Jesus. It is not necessary to repeat the entire biography of Jesus every time Paul says his name. Again, ludicrous quote mining.

Ephesians 4
7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. 8 Therefore it says,

When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.

9 (In saying, He ascended, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.

Jesus was buried and was raised from the grave, the promise of a future resurrection of the righteous from the grave as clearly described in 1 Corinthians 15 (see above).

BTW the quote is from Psalm 18 and refers the victory of the Lord over the nations.

Psalm 68
18 You ascended on high,
leading a host of captives in your train
and receiving gifts among men,
even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.

Colossians 3
1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Where else would he be? This has no bearing on the resurrection being spiritual or physical (as in on the third day).

I already dealt with Philippians 2 recently but I will repeat in here.

Philippians
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name

The word used for exalted is indicative aorist active 3rd person singular of , which is used metaphorically in the sense of to exalt to the highest rank and power, raise to supreme majesty. It does not convey the sense of ascending in a physical way, as in Acts 1:9. BTW the word used there is which really does mean to lift up in a physical sense.

Incidentally, the English word exalt does not convey any sense of physical raising either.

Exalt as per Merriam Webster
1: to raise in rank, power, or character
2: to elevate by praise or in estimation

Philippians is the only use of this word in the NT but it is used several times in the Greek Septuagint.


https://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php? ... k=Ps&ch=36
Psalm 37 (36 in Septuagint)
34 Wait for the LORD and keep his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the land; you will look on when the wicked are cut off.

-
https://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php? ... k=Ps&ch=96
Psalm 97 (96 in Septuagint)
9 For you, O Lord, are most high over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods.

-
https://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php? ... =DnOG&ch=3
(Greek) Daniel 3:52
Blessed are you, O Lord God of our fathers;
and praised and exalted above all for ever.
And blessed is your glorious and holy name;
and praised and exalted above all for ever.

None of these can be interpreted as ascending into heaven. It is all about praise and honor.

If we look at Philippians 2 in context, the meaning becomes plain.

Philippians 2
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Do not be selfish and conceited but act with and for others.

Philippians 2
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Even though Christ had every reason to feel superior, he gave all that up and humbled himself as an obedient servant even to the point of dying in a nasty way.

Philippians 2
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The word used for name is . The primary meaning is a proper name (Jesus). There is also a secondary meaning.

the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... ongs=g3686

Paul has just reminded the reader that Jesus gave up being divine to become an obedient servant even to the point of dying. That is the meaning of the name Jesus that matters and that is what God praised Jesus for to the highest possible degree. Recall that Jesus was already divine. All this praise and honor is because of what he did.

What is the take away lesson from this?

Philippians 2
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. 17 Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. 18 Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.

The point is that Jesus was subservient to God and was praised and assigned a high status for it. You (the recipients of the letter) should do the same. Nothing about the ascension.

The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body.

Both the Pharisees and the Essenes believed in the resurrection of the body, Josephus' philosophical construction of their belief to suit the taste of his Roman readers notwithstanding (see "B. J." ii. 8, 11; "Ant." xviii. 1, 5; compare these with the genuine source of Josephus, in Hippolytus' "Refutatio Hresium," ed. Duncker Schneidewin, ix. 27, 29, where the original [= "resurrection"] casts a strange light upon Josephus' mode of handling texts). According to the Rabbis, Job and Esau denied resurrection (B. B. 16a, b). Whosoever denies resurrection will have no share in it (Sanh. 90b). The resurrection will be achieved by God, who alone holds the key to it (Ta'an. 2a; Sanh. 113a). At the same time the elect ones, among these first of all the Messiah and Elijah, but also the righteous in general, shall aid in raising the dead (Pire R. El. xxxii.; Soah ix. 15; Shir ha-Shirim Zua, vii.; Pes. 68a; comp. "Bundahis," xxx. 17).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... surrection

[Imprecise Interrupt]

I only had enough spare time to get this far. I will do more responses when I get back, hopefully before the 4th of July when I really do not want to travel.

[Avoice]

In one word- no

In fact the oldest gosoel written had no resurrection account in it. The book of Mark is the oldest book not Mathew. And there is no resurrection account in that book. It was added in later by the church.

For the gospels to even be considered as credible testimony their writings would have to be credited to the ones who write them. They may be titled Mathew, Mark, Luke and John but that isn't who write them. They were written anonymously. We don't know who wrote them. The church titled the gospels in the 2nd century I believe it was Later they added the word Saint to their names (Saint Mathew, Saint Mark &)

The resurrection stories as the other Christian Testament stories disagree with each other.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

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.

Note: the word inner does not appear here.

Most translations render it to "reveal His Son IN () me." Doesn't really matter though. It was a "revelation" of Jesus from heaven, thus, was not a physical seeing of Jesus with Paul's eyes.

En is a general purpose preposition. In works just as well, perhaps even better. If Galatians 1 is supposed to be a different incident than 2 Corinthians 12, then Galatians 1 is God revealing Jesus in Paul, that is, God giving Paul knowledge of Jesus. No vision of any kind need be involved. If it is supposed to be the same incident as 2 Corinthians 12, then Paul goes to lengths to justify this as possibly being with the eyes (in the body) to put it on the same level as all those witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15 who (according to Paul) saw the risen Jesus in the flesh. If it was not in the body, and Paul is deliberately ambiguous about that, he was still caught up into the third heaven. There was no vision from heaven. The third heaven, also called paradise in 2 Corinthians 12:4, is described as a physical place in the manner of the Garden of Eden. Seeing with the eyes would be entirely possible there.

What really happened is that Paul made this up because he was contradicted concerning his gospel by thevery chiefest apostles (KJV) as Paul put it. This elaborate story of a private revelation in paradise was supposed to give him the authority to say they were wrong, that they were false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:13) No wonder Luke had to come up with a completely opposite story, couched in dramatic terms and presented three times to cover this up.

An important point in all this is that Paul did not put much emphasis on vision but rather on revelation (different word), the things he was told. He was not trying to prove the resurrection. He was trying to justify his authority. What were the 500+ witnesses told when Jesus was seen by them? Did they each get a private gospel like Paul?

I know you want to squash all those words together and have them all mean the same thing. But it is not working. The primary meaning of horao is still see with the eyes and if Paul wanted the skeptical Corinthians to think that all those people did not see Jesus with their eyes but only with their minds, it would backfire.

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 snowballs chance that he would be believed.

You keep making the same mistake by reading the ancient texts with modern presuppositions. They wouldn't have necessarily made the distinction between "seeing with the eyes" and "seeing with the mind." To them, they really thought they "saw/experienced" Jesus and that's all that mattered. I already demonstrated that we're dealing with an ancient superstitious visionary culture from over 2,000 years ago. They thought their visions and dreams were real! Plus, there is plenty of precedent and history of God communicating to the Jewish people through visions.

In every single one of the long list of one-liners cited in the blog you linked, the vision is given to, or intended for, a single person who receives specific knowledge or commands. What knowledge or commands were received by the 500+ witnesses? If it was a vision broadcast from heaven (and remember the word vision is not used in this passage), what knowledge would they have received? That Jesus was dead? They knew that already. He was killed very publicly. That Jesus was in heaven? So what? Paul has it that Jesus started in heaven. No surprise if he went back there. What advantage is there in Paul saying there were all those witnesses who only saw Jesus with their minds? What advantage would the Corinthians see in it for themselves? No advantage but a definite disadvantage. It is totally unconvincing to an already skeptical audience.

But if is it a physical bodily resurrection and all those people saw Jesus walking around in the flesh when he was definitely dead, now that is impressive! It makes all the other things Paul is saying about the power of God to raise the dead credible. Paul would definitely want it to be understood as a physical bodily resurrection.

If the 500+ witnesses only saw Jesus with their minds but thought it was real, as you say, why would they say they only saw Jesus with their minds? Why would they not say they really saw Jesus? Why would Paul say they only saw Jesus with their minds?

Some other problems with the blog:

Citing all sorts of OT and NT verses to try to support they notion that people saw visions all the time (a notion debunked above) is not very relevant. There were some Jews in Corinth but mostly they were pagans and would know nothing of the Jewish scriptures.

It is assumed that the Paul of the epistles is the Paul of Acts. I have already shown several times that the Paul of Acts is an invention of Luke and is distinctly different and in a number of important ways even opposite from the Paul of the epistles. The blogger is openly anti-apologist and his target is the univocal mindset of the apologist. I prefer to be neither, looking at what the author clearly meant to convey and not to try to support a pre-established goal with a grab bag of one-liners.

1 Corinthians 15 is not a firsthand source.

Jesus "appeared to me" (1 Cor 15:8) is a firsthand claim written by Paul himself. Have you found some previously undiscovered source where the appearance to Paul was not a vision or a revelation from heaven? Because that would completely rewrite the history of Christianity! Have you discovered any verse from Paul in his letters where he describes the Resurrected Jesus being experienced/known in a way more physical than a vision/revelation or the Scriptures? How about a passage that indicates the Risen Jesus' physical corpse walking around on earth after the Resurrection?

Nope?

Didn't think so.

1 Corinthians 15 has hundreds of witnesses who saw the risen Jesus walking around. This is what Paul intended to be understood, without which he would not be believed. Remember this is mainly a non-Jewish audience without all those one-liners in their background (and which do not work anyway as shown above). This is why he needed to qualify when Jesus was seen by him as of a different kind, as one who was not around when the risen Jesus was. This is why he needed to come up with an elaborate story about getting a special audience with Jesus up in the third heaven, possibly in the body, to justify his gospel when contradicted by real very chiefest apostles. Paul made all of this up, 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 12, to justify himself. Why would he not want a physical resurrection to be understood in 1 Cor 15? Especially when that the primary meaning of the word horao is to see with the eyes and the words for vision and revelation do not appear in 1 Cor 15.

Why does Paul not speak elsewhere of a real risen Jesus walking around? Because the idea of the resurrection is already widespread. Paul is interested in using it in his gospel as the guarantee of a future resurrection of (at least) the righteous, an idea already found in Daniel and in well-known apocryphal works. Paul only came up with witnesses when doubt was expressed, just as he only came up with the third heaven story when challenged about having authority to preach his gospel.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

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

"Throughout the writings of Flavius Josephus there are a number of references to dream experiences. Many of these are reports of dream theophanies where the human recipient either hears a message or sees a vision which significantly affects his or her actions. Josephus appears to report these dream experiences according to the literary conventions of his age." - Robert Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, pg. 129.

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.

The evidence is in the Old Testament where dreams are equated with visions or people "see" visions in a dream.

Numbers 12:6
And he said, Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.

Job 33:15
In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds,

Daniel 7:1-2
In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter. Daniel declared, I saw in my vision by night, and behold...

The choice word for dreams and dream-visions in the LXX is - something seen in sleep, i.e. a dream (vision in a dream):"dream. -, , ( and , what appears in sleep; from Aeschylus down), a dream (Latin insomnium), a vision which presents itself to one in sleep: Acts 2:17, on which passage see .

Some Greek literature examples - A. thing seen in sleep, in appos. with , a dream from the gods, a vision in sleep, came to me, Od.14.495, Il.2.56; the vision of a dream, Hdt.8.54.

So I think that settles that.

It settles that waking visions are not dreams and dreams are not waking visions, just like I said. Josephus offers no support to the idea that people in general were prone to having waking visions which they could not distinguish from reality, as you have claimed. And to repeat what I said recently, if those 500+ witnesses thought what they were seeing with their minds was real, why would they report it as having seen it with their minds and not with their eyes? And why would Paul repeat it that way when it would obviously flop with his skeptical audience? Paul very definitely intended it to be understand that all those witnesses he reported saw the risen Jesus in the flesh with their eyes, the primary meaning of the word. Any other interpretation has insurmountable problems.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

In one word- no

In fact the oldest gosoel written had no resurrection account in it. The book of Mark is the oldest book not Mathew. And there is no resurrection account in that book. It was added in later by the church.

For the gospels to even be considered as credible testimony their writings would have to be credited to the ones who write them. They may be titled Mathew, Mark, Luke and John but that isn't who write them. They were written anonymously. We don't know who wrote them. The church titled the gospels in the 2nd century I believe it was Later they added the word Saint to their names (Saint Mathew, Saint Mark &)

The resurrection stories as the other Christian Testament stories disagree with each other.

Thanks for the reply.

To speak of the church as a single organized entity when verses 9-20 of Mark are first attested (2nd century) is not really justified. The church as a formal organized structure did not really exist until the 4th century. In addition, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both 4th century manuscripts that contain the entirety of Mark, omit those final verses. Each of these have been proposed as representing the 50 bibles commissioned by Constantine. Yet they do not contain those verses. The 4th century Syriac language Sinaitic Palimpsest also omits them as do numerous other old manuscripts in various languages.

It appears that some early copyist was unhappy with the suspicious ending of Mark and threw in a bunch of references to other later Gospels (in a style totally unlike Mark) to make it sound less suspicious. There is also another completely different ending found in some manuscripts that appears to serve the same purpose. And as I have argued in Post #2 and elsewhere in this Topic, Matthew clearly saw the suspicious nature of Marks original ending and tried to cover it up, indicating that the original Mark did not have anything after verse 8.

[YahWhat]

You are the one who wants it to mean see with the mind whenever possible.

Nope. Rather, I've repeatedly pointed out that the meaning must be based on the context of the passage in which it is used.

I have noticed that when you have no real counter-argument that you start accusing me of dishonesty and using phrases like hand waving and slam dunk (not a good phrase to use considering its famous misuse). Just sayin

The bottom line is that we have a word which was used for both physical and spiritual seeing. It doesn't matter what the "primary" meaning is because the context determines what is meant. You're forced to concede that at this point. Progress.

Paul offers the 500+ witnesses as resurrection appearances,

Which could have been nothing more than a shared mass ecstatic worship experience like people have in church. Did groups of people really see the Virgin Mary in Zeitoun, Egypt? Did the Miracle of the Sun really happen in Portugal where people actually saw the sun bouncing around in the sky? Pareidolia and mass hysteria are actual documented things, you know?

then qualifies himself as having seen Jesus as to one untimely born (1 Cor 15:8) He was not there to witness a resurrected Jesus as those (alleged) witnesses were.

Paul makes no distinction between what "appeared" or "was seen" by him from what "appeared" or "was seen" by the others. Paul uses the same verb - for each "appearance" in the list as if to equate them. He nowhere indicates a difference in the type of appearances nor does he give any evidence of the Resurrected Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way than a vision/revelation in any of his letters. You're, therefore, left without any evidential basis in the earliest Christian material to assume the appearances were physical sightings.

He saw Jesus in the third heaven as he says in 2 Cor 12. (Jacking up the story because some real Apostles showed up in Corinth and contradicted him about the Law.)

This was another vision, not the resurrection appearance. Can you please find me just one scholar who identifies what Paul describes in 2 Cor 12 to be the "resurrection appearance" from 1 Cor 15:8 and Gal. 1:16? I've only seen scholars argue the exact opposite.

If there was no difference in how Paul saw Jesus, why would he need to quality it as something different? Paul is saying that all those people saw a real physical resurrected Jesus and he is trying to climb on the bandwagon.

The point is Paul doesn't qualify it as something different. He makes no distinction regarding the nature, quality, or type.

You don't actually respond to my argument here. Your replies are ignoring the more salient point which is the "revelation" from Gal. 1:16 is necessarily the "resurrection appearance" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:8. The "revelation" happened while Jesus was believed to be in heaven. It was not a physically seeing of Jesus. Despite this, Paul still claimed Jesus "appeared" to him. So obviously, by deductive logic, it necessarily follows that "revelations from heaven" (experiences that don't rely on physically seeing a physical person) qualified as resurrection appearances. You dodge the main point here which still stands unscathed.

In Acts, Paul got knocked down and blinded and told he was backing the wrong horse. That is not just a vision.

Acts says it was a vision. So the author of Acts did not mean it was a vision? The other physical aspects (which the author adds to the story) are irrelevant to the "vision" he had of Jesus from heaven. Moreover, Luke was modeling his Damascus Road vision report of off OT visions like Ezekiel has in Ez. 1 and Daniel 10:7 where only Daniel sees the vision and the others don't. Same word "optasia" is used in the LXX as in Acts 26:19.

Seeing something in their minds is not going to cut it. And Paul saying they only saw it with their minds is definitely not going to cut it with an audience already skeptical of his claims.

Again, with the "seeing with the mind" distinction which this ancient superstitious culture wouldn't have necessarily done. To them, they really thought they saw/experienced Jesus but, as I've shown, "seeing/experiencing" Jesus could be imagined through having "visions/revelations" from heaven. The point is visions convinced people so my argument still stands. Your reply is just a red herring.

The terms are not being used interchangeably. Did the 500+ witnesses get given secret knowledge that nobody else got? The vision was something very unusual. A visit to the third heaven. The revelation was the special knowledge.

We have no report of what the 500 actually saw or experienced so you can't claim that they all physically saw Christ. My plausible scenario (a mass ecstatic worship experience) explains the data perfectly.

Paul says Jesus was seen by him in a different manner than all those witnesses. 1 Cor 15:8

Nope. He uses the same verb for each "appearance" in the list. No distinction is made. The words "untimely" and "last of all" are only indicators of the timing of the appearance.

The revelation to Paul took place in the third heaven as per 2 Cor 12. Paul was told things that even the Apostles were not told. Gal 1 says that God revealed (gave knowledge about) Jesus to Paul. No mention of third heaven or seeing Jesus.

Again, these are not the same experiences. Paul uses his "revelation" of Jesus from Gal. 1:16 as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8. Moreover, this just proves my point. Paul's revelation (where he's given knowledge and doesn't see Jesus) proves that merely being "given knowledge" through spiritual/personal/subjective experiences could qualify as the Resurrected Christ "appearing." Thanks for that. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Paul never says he saw the risen Jesus in person on earth. He deliberately distinguishes his experience as being of a different kind because he was not around when Jesus rose from the dead.

Paul makes no distinction therefore he distinguishes his experience? What kind of logic is that? Paul, in no way, indicates the appearance to him was different. Remember, he uses the same verb for each one.

The ESV translates it this way.
1 Corinthians 15
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Why does the ESV translate it that way?

" " " "
Must for* the(definite article) corruptible(adjective) this to-be-putting-on incorruption(noun) and the(definite article) mortal(adjective) this to-be-putting-on immortality(noun)
* Conjunction is second place in a clause as usual

The use of a definite article and an adjective implies a noun.

For the corruptible (implied noun) must be putting on incorruption and the mortal (implied noun) putting on immortality.

Gee, what noun do you think Paul was implying? What is it that is corruptible and mortal? ESV supplies body as the implied noun.

1 Corinthians 15
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.

Paul uses the word soma (body) 10 times in this passage including in 15:44 where it is used twice. To insist that Paul is not talking about a body in 15:53 is just weird. Unless of course you can find some other suitable noun that can be described as corruptible and mortal that at the resurrection of the dead will put on incorruption and immortality? No dancing around or links to someplace else. Just supply a noun.

Your link says that there is no connection between the seed and the plant that grows from it, that there is a discontinuity between them. Am I supposed to take this seriously?

Aside: On another site years ago, someone did try to argue that the people back then were so stupid (his word) that they did not know that plants came from seeds. That all the talk connecting sowing and raising were mere coincidence. Like 5000 years of agriculture taught them nothing.

Pauls audience would have understood very clearly that the references to sowing seeds and sowing bodies and plants coming from seeds and corruptible/mortal dead bodies being raised and putting on incorruptibility and Immortality are talking about physical resurrection.

And the NIV translates it this way - "For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality."

Paul is making a distinction between:

1. what happens to the resurrected dead

and

2. what happens to the people still alive at the return of Christ.

The perishable person (dead person) must "put on" imperishability and the mortal person (person still alive) must "put on" immortality.

My point still stands. The word for "body" is not in the Greek there so that necessarily has to be fed into the text.

I have yet to see any evidence of this alleged visionary culture claim.

Have you read the Bible? Look, here is a resource which documents all or most of the "vision" stories from the Bible. So having "visions" of Jesus is perfectly consistent with and even expected from the Jewish socio-cultural background.