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?

[Avoice]

His disciples knew him better than we do.
And some of them even doubted him.

It he was seen after the crucifixion it wasnt jesus who was crucifued. Maybe it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified. According to the writer of Mathew he carried jesus' cross not Jesus. She maybe he stood in for him

Niw If jesus indeed resurrected it only shows that he had his second coming and didnt accomplish the work of the Messiah then either. Maybe its the third coming...or fourth ?

Second coming....do Christians realize that came and went already?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

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.

Your point fails. The presence of a definite article and an adjective indicates an implied noun. What is that noun if it is not ‘body’, a word that Paul has already used ten times in this passage? But as expected you just danced around because as expected you do not have an answer.

Everyone dead or alive will all be changed in the same way, as per verse 51. I see no indication of any separation between the living and the dead in any of the verses.

The nouns/subjects are the previously mentioned "we" who "will not all sleep" (obvious reference to people who are not dead) and the "the dead" who "will be raised imperishable" from verse 52.

Read the entire passage.

1 Cor 15:51-54
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.�

Notice how Paul makes a distinction between those alive and those dead at the Parousia (return of Christ). The "we will not all sleep" is a clear reference to those who will still be alive when Christ returns. People who are still alive won't be resurrected (because they're not dead) but will literally have their bodies transformed (we will all be changed). This distinction carries on in verse 52 - the *dead* will be raised imperishable and *we* will be changed (separates the dead who will be "raised imperishable" from the "we who will be changed"). Since the dead are "raised imperishable" they need not undergo a "change." That's what happens to the people still left alive when Christ returns. Verses 53-54 - perishable (dead) -> imperishable and the mortal (those alive) -> immortality. Paul is not saying the dead will be changed. Rather, based upon a proper analysis of the Greek:

"Thus the 'we shall be changed' of v. 52 would indicate that the 'we shall all be changed' of v. 51 refers to the universal transformation of Christians alive at the parousia, rather than to the transformation of all Christians, survivors and deceased, at the parousia." - pg. - Murray J. Harris, pg. 179 https://books.google.com/books?id=tejCz ... &q&f=false

Paul very clearly says that ‘we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed’ (v 51) Some will be dead, some will be alive. But ALL will be changed. It is a clear reference to both the living and the dead. The only distinction is that the dead will be raised imperishable. No need to raise the living. But ALL will be changed.

Here is the Greek

πάντες ο� κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα

All indeed not we-shall-be-being-reposed all yet we-shall-be-being changed

Indeed not all will be dead, yet all will be changed.
(As usual, in the Greek a conjunction is placed in the second position in a clause.)

Murray’s song and dance about how Paul should have said it differently just looks like trying to get around the word ALL. Paul said it this way because it is concise and musical and neatly encapsulates the idea that ALL the righteous will be changed. Murray’s analysis of the Greek is based on a misconception about what Paul is saying.

Musical? Sure: pantes men ou koimEthEsometha pantes de allagEsometha

Murray is hung up with κοιμηθησόμεθα (we-shall-be-being-reposed) being future tense. Murray is trying to figure out why Paul did not make it clearer whether most of those or only some of those alive when Paul wrote would die before the Parousia. That is not the point. If it were the point then the distinction would not be between those alive and those dead at the Parousia but between those who died before Paul wrote and those who either died later or did not yet die before the Parousia, since those last two are grouped under ALL. After all the verb is future tense, right?

It is clearly not that case that Paul is making a distinction between those already dead when he wrote and those not yet dead when he wrote and who may or may not die before the Parousia.

1 Corinthians 15
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

People have died before Paul wrote and will be raised. No distinction as to when people died. And because of the use of the word ‘all’ twice in 1 Cor 51, there is no distinction being made there between the living and the dead being changed.

Unfortunately, these days scholarship consists of obsessively minute examination of individual words with the aim of coming up with a new idea different from all preceding ideas. Having something different to say is how to get published. Heaven forfend that anyone should actually read the whole thing with a view to understanding what the original readers would have readily understood and why the author wanted them to understand that.

This distinction is corroborated by what Paul says in 1 Thess 4:16-17.

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

So a separation in time does mean a difference in character. Gee, a while back you were arguing that it does not. I provided strong reasons why Paul was saying that his experience was profoundly different from the others because when he saw Jesus he became an apostle with the right to have his own gospel. Please provide argumentation that the separation in time in 1 Thessalonians 4 indicates a difference in character.

What the passage really says is that the living and the resurrected dead will be caught up together. It does not say that the living were not changed at the same time as the dead when the trumpet blew, as described in 1 Cor 15. Please include in your argument a description of the form in which those who were still alive and those who were dead will be in when they are both caught up together in the clouds. The same or different?

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.

Just weird? I smell another argument from incredulity.

So you cannot answer this one either and need to throw out labels. Yes, the idea that Paul uses a word ten times and then when a missing noun is implied by a definite article and an adjective it could not possibly be that same word, even when that word fits the sense perfectly, is not credible.

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.

I think I just did that.

Oh really? What was the noun you supplied?

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?

There is continuity of the person, not necessarily the physical corpse.

Not the corpse but the reanimated changed body.

The first OT reference to individual resurrection sounds physical.

Daniel 12:2 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.

The idea of resurrection being expressed in bodily terms goes back even before individual resurrection was a common idea, when it was a metaphor for national restoration.

Isaiah 26:19 Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.

And of course, good old Zeke. (Someone should make a movie of this.)

Ezekiel 37
1 The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. 2 And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. 3 And he said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?� And I answered, “O Lord God, you know.� 4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.�

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. 9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.� 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

11 Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. 14 And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord.�

The idea that life is associated with the body can be seen in the association of life with breath, both in the OT and in the NT

Genesis 2:7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Genesis 6:17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

Job 2:3 As long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils

Acts 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

Revelation 11:11 But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

The one from Revelation is even a resurrection reference associated with breath.

Paul’s 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.

Oh really? Here's how Theophilus of Antioch understood it:

"A seed of wheat, for example, or of the other grains, when it is cast into the earth, first dies and rots away, then is raised, and becomes a stalk of grain." - To Autolycus, ch. 13.

So the physical body "rots away"? Hmm. But I thought the physical body that died, rises again....Hmm. I guess Paul wasn't talking about the revivification of physical corpses then.

Paul was talking about the dead bodies being changed, just as seeds are changed after they are buried.

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.
…
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.

It is the buried body that is raised in a changed form. That is what Paul is saying and what would be understood. The corpse coming out of the grave unchanged may very well be the idea that the Corinthians scoffed at and that Paul needs to disabuse them of. It is not the dead, hacked up, disease ridden corpse that comes out of the grave. It is the imperishable, glorified, powerful, spiritual body that the corpse is changed into. It would appear that on his visit to Corinth Paul told them that Jesus rose from the dead bodily and that they had a problem with that, crucified corpse and all. So now Paul needs to explain how a bodily resurrection is not a bad thing after all, how the resurrected body is changed from the corpse that was buried, just like the plant is different from the seed even though that is where the plant came from.

All of this points to Paul having meant a bodily resurrection of Jesus on the third day after he died and was buried and that he was seen in that body with the eyes by hundreds and hundreds of witnesses.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

If they could not tell the difference, why insist that they claimed to have seen it with their minds, which is what you want Paul to want the Corinthians to believe.

They didn't claim to "see it with their minds." That's what you're claiming they said. All they claimed is that the Risen Jesus "appeared" or "was revealed" to them. I'm arguing from the inference that the appearance to Paul was necessarily a vision/revelation he had while Jesus was located in heaven. Paul makes no distinction regarding the nature, quality or type of appearances. Paul gives no evidence of a physically resurrected Jesus on earth or him being experienced in a more "physical" way than a vision/revelation. Therefore, the inference to the best explanation is that Paul was saying all the appearances were of the same type i.e. spiritual visions/revelations from heaven like he had.

Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that Jesus was raised from the dead. He presents as evidence the story that there were numerous witnesses who saw Jesus. If Paul wanted the Corinthians to think that the witnesses only saw Jesus with their minds, that would imply that these witnesses said that they only saw Jesus with their minds, and whoever told this story to Paul (who was not around at the time) said that the witnesses said that they only saw Jesus with their minds.. How would this information about seeing only with the mind have been passed along? Remember that the primary meaning of the word is to see with the eyes. And why would Paul want the Corinthians to think that these witnesses only saw Jesus with their minds when they were already skeptical about the claim of a resurrection? This is the argument you refuse to address, relying entirely on word games.

Paul definitely does distinguish the character of his experience from that of the others. In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul says “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you�. Apparently what Paul is preaching is not the party line (and we know that to be the case) and he needs to provide justification for it. In 1 Corinthians 15 he again associates having seen Jesus with being an apostle. (As always, when Paul says apostle, he means missionary not the Twelve) In 1 Cor 15 Paul is saying it for the second time and the meaning would be clear that e is justifying himself to be an apostle. Paul certainly did not mean the 500+ witnesses were eligible to be apostles preaching different gospels because they saw Jesus.

Paul is doing two things with the witness list. He is providing evidence for the resurrection which the Corinthians doubted. And he is reiterating his claim to be an apostle, which was also doubted. He uses the same word throughout in 1 Cor 15 so he can end up the list with ‘the other apostles’ and tack himself on right after that and call himself an apostle. Using a different word would break the connection and cast further doubt on his claim of apostleship. As I have been saying for a long time, the word has multiple meanings.

As I have said earlier, these were always about some message being conveyed. What was the message supposedly given to the 500+ witnesses? Did they each get a private gospel like Paul? If the message they got was simply that Jesus was in heaven, so what? Jesus, who according to Paul came from heaven, went back to heaven again as a spirit. What good does that do anyone? How does this relate to the promised resurrection of all those who did not originally come from heaven?

Jesus was seen as the "firstfruits" of the general resurrection - 1 Cor 15:20 and was expected to return soon. Paul and Mark both thought Jesus' return was soon/imminent. After that, the other gospel authors mute/subdue the imminent eschatological passages which is pretty much non-existent by the time the Gospel of John was written. .

You did not answer the question. Is Paul saying that each of the 500+ witnesses become an apostle with an individualized gospel because they saw Jesus?

But since you mention eschatology…

Mark addresses the issue of Jesus not having returned soon as Paul indicated would happen. The disastrous Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem and even the Temple itself gave messianic fervor a bad name. Mark cleverly made the destruction of the Temple the sign of Jesus getting ready to return, phrased as a prophecy made by Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus would return before all of the immediate disciples were dead (‘not taste death’) and before the generation alive at the time of Jesus were all dead. In this way Mark sought to revive faith in Jesus as Messiah, those two points – faith and Messiah – being all throughout Mark’s Gospel.

Matthew and Luke retained this story because it is a good one but each put disclaimers on just how soon ‘soon’ was. John makes not mention of it at all, making the ‘not taste death’ phrase into a reference to eternal life. The added-on chapter 21 of John even denies that Jesus ever said such a thing, making it into a misunderstanding. This chapter is interesting because it seems to imply that the author of the gospel, referred to in the third person, has died. The last immediate disciple of Jesus is now dead and Jesus still has not come back.

Acts also changes the story, having the angels say to the disciples watching the ascension of Jesus say (paraphrase) “Jesus will come back but don’t get a kink in your neck looking for him any time soon’. Luke, clever as always, then diverts attention from the kingdom coming in power as promised to the Holy Spirit granting power to the Apostles at Pentecost and so creating an ongoing ‘church’.

The last holdout of the ‘any day now’ school is John of Patmos. Revelation is a collection of every apocalyptic scriptural reference he could lay his hands on, organized into a uber-dramatic scary story and cleverly connected it to then current events to ‘prove’ that the end of days was happening, like maybe next Tuesday. Daniel was told to seal up the book of prophecies until the end. John of Patmos was told not to seal the book of prophecies ‘for the time is near’.

But a physical bodily resurrection is something people can relate to. Not just the divine Jesus going back home again, but the human Jesus coming out of the grave. If that is possible, then it is possible for ordinary humans to get resurrected.

Which is consistent with the data we have in the gospels where the story evolves over time towards an empty tomb and a more physical/corporeal Jesus. .

All of 1 Corinthians 15 is about bodily resurrection because without that, the resurrection of Jesus, who just went back to heaven where he came from, has no bearing on mortals who did not come from heaven.

No, the story did not grow over time.

Yes it does. There's no empty tomb mentioned in 1 Cor 15 when we'd expect it since he was trying to convince the Corinthians who doubted the resurrection and also explain "with what type of body do they come?" Mark has no witnesses but has the empty tomb = growth. Matthew has witnesses = growth. Luke places all the appearances in Jerusalem (not Galilee) and they are much more physical where the Risen Jesus eats fish and has his "flesh and bone" body inspected. Then, he ascends to heaven! = growth. In John, we get the Doubting Thomas story and the belief that Jesus is basically God = growth.

How is that not growth? .

1 Cor 15 has a whole bunch of witnesses. Mark has none and a very suspicious story that almost screams grave robbery to anyone not already a believer. And recall that Matthew tells us that exactly that story was going around. All the other Gospels start from Mark. None of them make any mention of anything in 1 Cor 15, even though we know that at least Mark and Luke read it and that the absence of witnesses is plainly an embarrassment to Matthew. How is that growth from 1 Cor 15? It isn’t.

The last thing Paul would want to mention is an empty tomb as evidence of a resurrection. The obvious answer to that for a skeptic, like those in Corinth, would be that the body was stolen.

Mark was Jewish, not gentile, as can be seen by subtle references such as the fourth cup at Seder being for Elijah. Matthew was not only Jewish, he was writing to an observant Jewish audience. Where does the gentile part fit in?

Mark was writing for gentiles! He has to explain Jewish customs in Mark 7 and explain that "Preparation Day" was the "day before the Sabbath." It's unclear if Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience due to his gospel actually being quite anti-Jewish at times. What is more likely is that he was writing for a second generation Christian group that may have been still living in a largely Jewish community. We don't really know though. Luke was certainly writing for gentiles and John was writing well after Christianity and Judaism had formally split due to the numerous times the author uses the term "the Jews." Was he unaware that both Jesus and his followers were Jewish? Haha! .

The parenthetical remark in Mark 7:3-4 may not be original. We know that another parenthetical remark is a later addition.

Mark 7 NIV
19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.� (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

The underlined portion found in NIV does not appear in Codex Sinaiticus or Textus Receptus. It is also totally contrary to the idea of the pericope, that Jesus is demanding obedience to the Written Torah against man made rules that contradict it. Why would he say that kosher law, an essential part of the Written Torah, is obsolete?

At the very beginning of Mark there is the famous example that early manuscripts do not have Mark call Jesus ‘Son of God’. He calls Jesus ‘the Messiah’. A Jew would understand that this would already encompass ‘Son of God’ in light of the messianic reference in Psalm 2.

If we look at Mark 7 we can see that verses 3 and 4 break up the flow of thought.

Mark 7
1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. [strike]3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)[/strike] 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?�

Works just fine and makes the use of ‘And’ (καὶ) at the beginning of verse 5 more reasonable, bein a direct follow on to verse 2. Verse 2 and verse 5 are one continuous thought. ‘In the action’ Mark always moves the story along. It would be very odd for him to slow things down like that. Verses 3 and 4 sure sound like a later insertion to explain things to Gentiles just like the parenthetical expression found in the NIV in verse 19 is an obvious later insertion. (And don’t forget the ‘enhanced’ endings tacked onto Mark.)

With the exception of passages about ‘the King of the Jews’, the use of the word ‘Jews’ (Ioudaios) is otherwise nearly unknown before John. Luke refers once to the ‘elders of the Jews’ that the centurion asks to contact Jesus. (Luke 7)

The usual translation of Mark 15:42 is And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath

But that is not what the Greek says. It does not say ‘it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath’. What is says is much simpler.

πα�ασκευή, ὅ �στιν π�οσάββατον
preparation which is the-day-before-Sabbath

No day of Preparation, just ‘preparation’
No ‘that is’ at all
‘the day before the Sabbath’ is simply a single word all by itself.

Since Mark is already talking about Passover, it is important to distinguish the preparation for the weekly Sabbath, essential for the plot, from the preparation for Passover, which Mark mentions in Mark 14.

Making this into an explanation for Gentiles is a matter of elaborated translation, not anything that is in the original. Gentiles would not know what ‘preparation’ is but a Jew would understand.

Mark begins his Gospel with identifying John the Baptist with Elijah, but only indirectly. This identification shows up a number of times in Mark and is essential to Mark having Jesus be the Messiah. A Jew would get it but not Gentiles.

In Mark 2 there is an argument over observation of Sabbath Laws, contrasting the difference in interpretation between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. A Jew would get this but not Gentiles.

In the Last Supper narrative, Mark makes reference to Seder customs which are essential to understanding how Jesus is being portrayed. A Jew would get this but not Gentiles.

Mark has the women wait until Sunday morning to complete the burial rituals that could not be don on Friday. Mark never explains this. He just presents it. A Jew would get this but not Gentiles. It s not until Luke that it gets explained – to his Gentile audience.

Mark wrote for Jews. His text was modified later to better reach Gentiles.

Paul needs to establish himself as an apostle even though he was not around when all those other (alleged) witnesses were.

Not being around doesn't mean he thought the appearances were different. I've already refuted the reference "as to one untimely born." This, in no way, indicates that he thought the appearances were different in nature. .

You have refuted nothing. You merely ignored the counter-arguments, sticking with your ‘but it’s the same word!’ mantra. Of course, Paul uses the same word so he can call himself an apostle. But as is obvious from 1 Cor 9 and the surrounding verses in 1 Cor 15, Paul does not mean the experience was the same. The 500+ witnesses are not entitled to be apostles with their own gospels. But Paul claims to be exactly that by reason of having seen Jesus. Different kind of experience.

Prove that they would not have made such a distinction.

This is shifting of the burden of proof. You made the claim now support it. I supported my claim by showing how this was a visionary culture where people thought they really "saw" things in visions/dreams. They did not make distinctions like modern people do. .

You repeatedly claimed it was a visionary culture but all the examples you gave were of very special visions presented only to a single person, not 500 at once. And as noted in my previous post, your examples flopped. I gave numerous examples of visions being portrayed as being physically real events and considered to be so by the witnesses. So with that kind of scriptural heritage, why would Paul want the Corinthians to think it was anything else but real physical events.

By being too late, his experience was not of the same character.

Non-sequitur. The timing of the appearance has no bearing on its nature. Jesus can appear in a vision immediately just as he can appear in one 3 years later. Just because the experience was "later" it does not follow that it was understood to be different.

I have presented extensive argumentation that Paul portraying his experience as different from the others is essential to his claim to be an apostle with the ‘real deal’ gospel. Paul considers it different.

quote]This points to Paul using horao in a different sense for himself than for the witnesses.

Haha! Utter rubbish! He uses the same form ophthe for each one therefore he was distinguishing them? Wow![/quote]
Which he plainly does in 1 Cor 9 and even in 1 Cor 15, his experience marking him as an apostle. He has to be at least as good as the ‘real’ apostles or his claim falls flat. Of course he would use the same word to make the connection with them, and immediately distinguishes his experience as different in making him an apostle.

But you need to have horao always have the same meaning, the same secondary meaning, every single time, despite that making a total hash of Paul’s arguments.

They saw it with their eyes on earth. He did not.

Oh so now Paul didn't see Jesus with his eyes?! You're talking out both sides of your mouth.

When challenged again in Corinth, Paul comes back with another story about being taken to the third heaven, maybe in the body, maybe not. If someone made an issue out of him using horao in a different sense than for the other witnesses (with the eyes for them, with the mind for him) he could have come up with that trick to cover that. As I previously noted, this also makes helps to make it acceptable to both those familiar with 2 Enoch and those not.

The truth is that nobody saw anything at all. Paul made up the witness list when he was challenged about the resurrection idea. And he made up the seeing Jesus story so he could call himself an apostle.

More to come.

You can have the last reply. I'm done wasting my time. You just keep saying the same things over and over when they have already been sufficiently addressed.

You have not addressed my most important arguments at all. I have always addressed everything you said, always fully quoting you and covering every point. You have not done that.

Unless someone else has something to say on this Topic, I will be moving on to other interesting threads when I find the time.

[JehovahsWitness]

The earliest written account is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. ... Why is this account absent from the Gospels?

Paul is probably referring to one of the Galilean appearancess that are in fact mentioned in the gospels. If this is the case, all Paul is doing is adding the specific number of those in attendance.

Mark

Mark's account (Mark 16) ... Why such a minimalist...?

Mark: A writers perrogative, well in keeping with Mark's fast paced and dynamic style. He jumps sometimes months between verses, skipping many events the other gospel writers linger on, styling his gospel well for a foreign reader unaccustomed to lengthy Jewish detail.


I can't see any factual challenge mentioned regarding the gospels of Matthew or Luke, just a summary various interpretations, suspicions and speculations.

John ...Although it is stated that the visit to the tomb takes place on Sunday, it is not clear how many days have elapsed since Jesus was buried.

• What day did Jesus die (Passover)?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 32#p893932
  
  Three days and nights (Mat 12:40)
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p763320
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 77#p843477
  post 71 liamconnor
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 04#p807004
  
  Who were the women that visited Jesus tomb?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p908331

RELATED POSTS

• Is it possible to harmonize the four different gospel accounts of the resurrection?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p926583
  
  WHY did the women visit the tomb?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p926941
  
  Did Jesus keep his word that no sign would be given to that generation besides the resurrection (Mark 8:12) ?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#p814544

Go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

[Imprecise Interrupt]

The earliest written account is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. ... Why is this account absent from the Gospels?

Paul is probably referring to one of the Galilean appearances that are in fact mentioned in the gospels. If this is the case all Paul is doing is adding the specific number of those in attendance.

Matthew’s Galilean appearances are very odd sounding

• Matthew 28
  16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.�

To begin with, it is such a skeletal story compared to the part that came before including the guards, the dramatic angel, the women at the tomb, Jesus talking to them. (Although that has its odd features as well.) In Galilee, nobody talks to Jesus. Jesus never says “Hi guys, I told you I would be back�. And what happens then? Jesus gives them the Great Commandment and…?

The word usually translated as ‘some doubted’ (v 17) is actually ‘they doubt’ (narrative present as per usual convention). This is �δίστασαν.in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and ΕΔΙΣΤΑΣΑ� in the Textus Receptus and Codex Sinaiticus. All the same word – indicative aorist active third person plural – just different letter forms: diacritic-miniscule and uncial. This is really what was originally written by Matthew as far as can be determined.

The Eleven (Twelve minus Judas) traveled with Jesus for months (years according to John) but they doubted? Even only some of them? Why should anyone else believe if they did not? Also recall that according to Luke, they never went to Galilee to see Jesus. They stayed in Jerusalem with Jesus as they were told until Jesus had ascended.

If Matthew, supposedly one of the Twelve, says no more than that about the Galilean appearance, despite delivering enormous verbiage and detail and dialog throughout his Gospel, who gave Paul the elaborate details he provides in 1 Cor 15? Who were these 500+ witnesses in Galilee? Were James and the other missionaries (what Paul means when he says apostle) also in Galilee? 1 Cor 15 says they saw Jesus as well.

Mark

Mark’s account (Mark 16) ... Why such a minimalist

Mark: A writers perrogative, well in keeping with Marks fast paced and dynamic style. He jumps sometimes months between verses, skipping many events the other gospel writers linger on, styling his gospel well for a foreign reader unaccustomed to lengthy Jewish detail.

But why leave out something of such enormous importance? If the tomb is empty and someone says Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee and there are no witnesses, is that supposed to support the idea that it really happened? Mark would normally have told us where they met up with Jesus in Galilee and who said what when they were there.

Mark provides a great deal of detail in his pericopes. He does not have all the stories found in the other Gospels because the other writers made them up for their own purposes as I have addressed in this Topic. As I have discussed at length elsewhere in this Topic, parts of Mark sound very much like genuine early traditions that not only would be of negligible interest to later non-Jewish Christians, but could even be problematic for them. This notion is supported by the Aramaic sentence structure typically found in pericopes of that type and the use of Aramaic phrases here and there.

Mark’s ending sounds very much like somebody stole the body and planted a resurrection story. Matthew says that there was indeed a story going around saying that the body was stolen and awkwardly tries to explain it away. Why would Mark write it the way he did unless it was also an early tradition that he was presenting even though it was problematic?

BTW I have argued elsewhere in another Topic that Mark did not write for Gentiles as is often claimed. The parenthetical remark in Mark explaining Jewish customs sounds very much like a later insertion. The supposed explanation of Preparation Day and the Sabbath in Mark 15 turns out, when one looks at the Greek, not to be an explanation at all but simply a remark essential to the plot. Not only that but Mark never explains why it is important and is key to the women going to the tomb on Sunday. And Mark otherwise uses Jewish themes of significant importance to his story that would be lost on Gentiles and he does so without any explanation.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 125 by Imprecise Interrupt]

I'm really not interested in what you find "odd", unconvincing or suspicious. If you believe there is a textual contradiction feel free to present it, other than that, your opinion on how you believe the writers should have expressed themselves or your own preferences when it comes to editorial choices, are of no interest to me.

From what I can see you offer nothing that makes it impossible that Paul's reference did indeed correspond to one of the gospel appearances.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The supposed explanation of Preparation Day and the Sabbath in Mark 15 turns out, when one looks at the Greek, not to be an explanation at all but simply a remark essential to the plot. .

Is this supposed to be a counter argument to my post on what day of the week Jesus died? If so, of what relevance is your comment about Greek ?

John ...Although it is stated that the visit to the tomb takes place on Sunday, it is not clear how many days have elapsed since Jesus was buried.

• What day did Jesus die (Passover)?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 932#893932
  
  Three days and nights (Mat 12:40)
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 320#763320
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 477#843477
  post 71 liamconnor
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 004#807004

Maybe you are dealing with somebody else's points here,

Please clarify



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The Eleven (Twelve minus Judas) traveled with Jesus for months (years according to John) but they doubted?

Did the Aposltes doubt Jesus resurrection after meeting him?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 240#927240


RELATED POSTS

Was Thomas right to doubt?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 969#904969

Go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

[Imprecise Interrupt]

The Eleven (Twelve minus Judas) traveled with Jesus for months (years according to John) but they doubted?

Did the Aposltes doubt Jesus resurrection after meeting him?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 240#927240

As I have pointed out repeatedly in the Topic, Matthew has the Eleven go to Galilee before seeing Jesus. Luke has them required to stay in Jerusalem with Jesus from the day Jesus was resurrected until after the ascension. Combining multiple accounts to try to come up with a coherent story has to first deal with that before it can be considered credible.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 129 by Imprecise Interrupt]

You may have pointed it out but in the absence of the text actually saying any of that there is no reason why I or anyone should believe you. Matthew most certainly does not state the eleven travelled to Galilee before having seen the rise Christ. Luke does not state Jesus never appeared in Galilee and your speculations and suppositions do not appear in the gospel text.





JW


RELATED POSTS

Did the Apostles travel to Galilee on the first Sunday?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 277#927277

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 579#926579

Where did the ascension take place?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 561#926561