The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof

[AchillesHeel]

The resurrection argument requires that witnesses really saw Jesus alive again after his death. This is because there is literally no other way to confirm a resurrection took place. So the evidence needs to indicate this otherwise one should not be persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person. This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me" and our only source by someone in the entire New Testament who claims to have met Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). Moreover, scholars are unanimous that Paul actually wrote at least 7 epistles attributed to him whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels. In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus. Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable if one wants to maintain they're all reliably reporting what actually took place. viewtopic.php?t=41563

From these sources, it seems the aorist passive ὤφθη was more commonly used to indicate the subject takes the initiative to "reveal itself" to the viewer rather than indicate a viewer seeing by their normal eyesight. Philo's comment on Abraham's vision is relevant where he contrasts the active form of the verb with the aorist passive ὤφθη and the emphasis is on "comprehension" rather than literal seeing.

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

Notice how when Paul unambiguously refers to seeing someone or someone's actions in the past tense, he uses the active form εἶδον.

Gal 1:18-19

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see (εἶδον) any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal. 2:14

But when I saw (εἶδον) that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

"There are three ways of translating the aorist passive ὤφθη + dative proper noun (v. 5):

Passively: "He was seen". The seer is the active agent. Grammatically this version, in which the seer is in the dative, seems problematic and is consequently ruled out.

As a deponent/middle form: “He made himself seen”, “he showed himself". This translation is possible as a Christological interpretation of "seeing".

Theological passive: “He was made visible by God.” In the style of LXX translations of OT theophany passages (cf. Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1, etc.; Ex 3:2.16; 4:1; 6:3) God becomes the active subject who makes the resurrected Christ visible.

In principle both the second and the third ways of translating ὤφθη would be a possibility. The already observed proximity between a theological and a Christological view of the resurrection message makes it seem irrelevant to seek a definitive deciding of this question. Interpretations of the nature of the “seeing" range from the assumption of a sensory, physical seeing to vision theories and finally to an ignoring or excluding of the element of making visible in favour of a - however understood - “manifestation". Despite any reservations, Pannenberg would prefer to retain the term "vision" because when someone sees something that others present are unable to see, this is a “vision”. - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

“The meaning of ophthe. Ophthe is the aorist passive form of the Greek verb horao (I see). The word is used nine times in the New Testament in relation to the raised Jesus (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1 Cor. 15:5–8 (four times); and 1 Tim. 3:16). When used with the dative, it is usually translated ‘He appeared’, and as such emphasizes the revelatory initiative of the one who appears. The sense is almost, ‘He let himself be seen’ (as opposed to something like ‘he was seen’).

Some scholars who favour objective visions rather than ordinary seeing argue that the New Testament’s use of ophthe entails this conclusion. Thus Badham says: ‘most New Testament scholars believe that the word ophthe . . . refers to spiritual vision rather than to ocular sighting.’ The argument is that the religious use of ophthe is technical, marks a clear difference from ordinary visual perception of physical objects, and entails some sort of spiritual appearance, vision-like experience, or apprehension of a divine revelation.” – Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

"Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5–8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven.

This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1 Cor 15:5–8; Luke 24:34 and 1 Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1 Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15

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

When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5, pp. 358-59

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

[AchillesHeel]

Here are all the instances of ὤφθη in the New Testament. 95+% of cases refer to visions or supernatural appearances.

1. Matthew 17:3 – "And behold appeared (ὤφθη) to them Moses" – Called a "vision" (horama) in Mt. 17:9.

2. Mark 9:4 – "And appeared (ὤφθη) to them Elijah" – Same Transfiguration appearance described in Matthew.

3. Luke 1:11 – "Appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him" – "An angel appeared" – called a "vision" in Lk. 1:22.

4. Luke 22:43 – "Appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him" – "An angel from heaven appeared."

5. Luke 24:34 – "Lord and appeared (ὤφθη) to Simon" – Taken directly from 1 Cor 15:5?

6. Acts 2:3 – "Tongues of fire appeared (ὤφθησαν) among them" – Manifestation of the Spirit "from heaven" – Acts 2:2.

7. Acts 7:2 – "The God of glory appeared (ὤφθη) to our father Abraham."

8. Acts 7:26 – "The day he (Moses) appeared (ὤφθη) to them as they were fighting together."

9. Acts 7:30 – "Years forty appeared (ὤφθη) to him in" – "An angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush."

10. Acts 9:17 – "So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared (ὀφθείς) to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.'"

11. Acts 13:31 – "Who appeared (ὤφθη) for days" – Compare this to Acts 10:40-41: "But God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."

12. Acts 16:9 – "To Paul appeared (ὤφθη) a man of Macedonia" – (In a vision).

13. Acts 26:16 – "I have appeared (ὤφθην) to you" – In a "vision from heaven" – Acts 26:19.

14. 1 Corinthians 15:5 – "And that he appeared (ὤφθη) to Cephas then" – The same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

15. 1 Corinthians 15:6 – "Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to more than five hundred" – The same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

16. 1 Corinthians 15:7 – "Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to James then" – The same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

17. 1 Corinthians 15:8 – "The untimely birth he appeared (ὤφθη) also to me" – Which was a vision/revelation – Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19.

18. 1 Timothy 3:16 – "In [the] Spirit was seen (ὤφθη) by angels, was proclaimed."

19. Revelation 11:19 – "Heaven and was seen (ὤφθη) the ark" – Takes place in heaven.

20. Revelation 12:1 – "A sign great was seen (ὤφθη)" – In heaven.

21. Revelation 12:3 – "And was seen (ὤφθη) another sign" – In heaven.

[RBD]

The resurrection argument requires that witnesses really saw Jesus alive again after his death. This is because there is literally no other way to confirm a resurrection took place. So the evidence needs to indicate this otherwise one should not be persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

Eyewitness testimony doesn't have to be believed. However, believability is in part based upon the character of the eyewitness. I.e. without any evidence disproving the eyewitness, then the only recourse is to attack the character. And if all the testimony is in a Book, then the Book itself must be proven faulty, so as to then apply fault to the testimony.

The title itself is presumptive, since all men die, and no man can predetermine by personal faith alone, what death will reveal or not.

A proper title would be: There is presently no physical evidence of the resurrection, other than recorded eyewitness testimony in the Bible.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15)

The earliest recorded testimony of Jesus' resurrection, is Mary Magdalene on the day of His resurrection.

The first recorded preaching of His resurrection by an eyewitness, was Peter on the Pentecost 49 days after His resurrection.

the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person. This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me"

The record of eyewitness testimony of Jesus appearing to people after His resurrection, begins on the day of His resurrection, and 40 days of talking, eating, and drinking with people...

It's one thing not to believe a Book, but another to report on a Book without reading all of it.

and our only source by someone in the entire New Testament who claims to have met Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). Moreover, scholars are unanimous that Paul actually wrote at least 7 epistles attributed to him whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels.

If they read, or don't read, the same as you, then their scholarship is not objectively critical, but subjectively blind.

Subjective unbelievers in a Book, that quote other subjective critics of a Book, that don't read the Book objectively, is called circular irrelevance to the Book.

In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus. Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable if one wants to maintain they're all reliably reporting what actually took place. viewtopic.php?t=41563

From these sources, it seems the aorist passive ὤφθη was more commonly used to indicate the subject takes the initiative to "reveal itself" to the viewer rather than indicate a viewer seeing by their normal eyesight. Philo's comment on Abraham's vision is relevant where he contrasts the active form of the verb with the aorist passive ὤφθη and the emphasis is on "comprehension" rather than literal seeing.

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

Notice how when Paul unambiguously refers to seeing someone or someone's actions in the past tense, he uses the active form εἶδον.

Gal 1:18-19

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see (εἶδον) any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal. 2:14

But when I saw (εἶδον) that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

"There are three ways of translating the aorist passive ὤφθη + dative proper noun (v. 5):

Passively: "He was seen". The seer is the active agent. Grammatically this version, in which the seer is in the dative, seems problematic and is consequently ruled out.

As a deponent/middle form: “He made himself seen”, “he showed himself". This translation is possible as a Christological interpretation of "seeing".

Theological passive: “He was made visible by God.” In the style of LXX translations of OT theophany passages (cf. Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1, etc.; Ex 3:2.16; 4:1; 6:3) God becomes the active subject who makes the resurrected Christ visible.

In principle both the second and the third ways of translating ὤφθη would be a possibility. The already observed proximity between a theological and a Christological view of the resurrection message makes it seem irrelevant to seek a definitive deciding of this question. Interpretations of the nature of the “seeing" range from the assumption of a sensory, physical seeing to vision theories and finally to an ignoring or excluding of the element of making visible in favour of a - however understood - “manifestation". Despite any reservations, Pannenberg would prefer to retain the term "vision" because when someone sees something that others present are unable to see, this is a “vision”. - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

“The meaning of ophthe. Ophthe is the aorist passive form of the Greek verb horao (I see). The word is used nine times in the New Testament in relation to the raised Jesus (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1 Cor. 15:5–8 (four times); and 1 Tim. 3:16). When used with the dative, it is usually translated ‘He appeared’, and as such emphasizes the revelatory initiative of the one who appears. The sense is almost, ‘He let himself be seen’ (as opposed to something like ‘he was seen’).

Some scholars who favour objective visions rather than ordinary seeing argue that the New Testament’s use of ophthe entails this conclusion. Thus Badham says: ‘most New Testament scholars believe that the word ophthe . . . refers to spiritual vision rather than to ocular sighting.’ The argument is that the religious use of ophthe is technical, marks a clear difference from ordinary visual perception of physical objects, and entails some sort of spiritual appearance, vision-like experience, or apprehension of a divine revelation.” – Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

"Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5–8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven.

This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1 Cor 15:5–8; Luke 24:34 and 1 Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1 Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15

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

When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5, pp. 358-59

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

Intellectual scholarship in itself is very enticing and engaging. It takes time, purpose, and practice to present it coherently.

It doesn't mean it's objectively worth anything, especially when it produces a Book report, that obviously doesn't read it with simple objective analysis.

[AchillesHeel]

[Replying to RBD in post #3]

You don't actually address the problem of the terminology from the OP but your assertion that Mary Magdalene's testimony is the "earliest" was not supported with any evidence whatsoever. We do not even have Mary's own firsthand account. Paul's letters date to the 50s CE so let me know when you find something written by Mary that has been verified to predate Paul. Moreover, which version of Mary's portrayal is correct?

In Luke's Gospel, Mary is part of a group that receives a direct, unambiguous revelation from two angels. They are explicitly told, "He has risen!" They are even reminded of Jesus's own prophecies. When they leave the tomb, they possess the knowledge that a miraculous resurrection has occurred. Their report, though disbelieved, is based on this divine information.

In John's Gospel, Mary has no such information. Her only data point is an open tomb and a missing body. Her immediate and only conclusion is that the body has been stolen. Her first report to the disciples, "They have taken the Lord... and we don’t know where they have put him!" (John 20:2), is a cry of despair rooted in ignorance. She has no concept of a resurrection. Even when the angels later speak to her, they offer no information, and she is still weeping until Jesus reveals himself.

You cannot be Luke's Mary and John's Mary at the same time. One is an informed messenger of the resurrection; the other is a distressed witness to a presumed crime. Her entire motivation, message, and understanding of the situation are fundamentally different.

The reports also conflict.

On the road to Emmaus, the disciples give a summary of the morning’s events. They say the women "went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive... but they did not see Jesus” (Luke 24:22-24).

If the women had already seen the risen Jesus, as Matthew and John claim, why is that crucial fact absent from this detailed report? Surely, an actual appearance of the resurrected Lord would be the headline, not an angelic vision. Luke’s narrative implies that the first appearance was to Peter or to the men on the Emmaus road, not to the women.

Furthermore, Luke states that when the women returned from the tomb, "they told all these things to the Eleven" (Luke 24:9). The context of "all these things" appears to be only the empty tomb and the message from the angels. This directly conflicts with John's account, where Mary Magdalene's report is unequivocally, “I have seen the Lord!” (John 20:18). These are two different reports.

Which version of the first appearance actually happened?

In Matthew, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" as they are on their way from the tomb to tell the disciples.

In John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, sees it is empty, and runs to tell Peter and the other disciple before she has seen Jesus. Only after they leave does she remain behind and become the first person to see the risen Lord.

These two accounts are mutually exclusive. Did Jesus appear to two women on their way to the disciples, or did he appear to one woman after she had already reported the empty tomb? This is a clear contradiction in the narrative sequence of the very first appearance.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #3]

You don't actually address the problem of the terminology from the OP

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Useless word studies about a resurrection they testify of, as though they weren't speaking of His resurrection. Unnecessary scholarship to divert from the simple record.

but your assertion that Mary Magdalene's testimony is the "earliest" was not supported with any evidence whatsoever. We do not even have Mary's own firsthand account.

The Book says so.

Mar 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Jhn 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

And she said so.

Paul's letters date to the 50s CE

The question is the earliest recorded testimony of seeing the resurrected Lord Jesus. Mary to the disciples on the same day. Not Paul years later.

The earliest recorded preaching of Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, is by Peter 49 days later, not Paul years later.

The reports also conflict.

So you say. But we already see how you don't even know how to report on what a Book says. Any claims of the Book contradicting itself is already suspect in the least.

In Matthew, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" as they are on their way from the tomb to tell the disciples.

In John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, sees it is empty, and runs to tell Peter and the other disciple before she has seen Jesus. Only after they leave does she remain behind and become the first person to see the risen Lord.

These two accounts are mutually exclusive. Did Jesus appear to two women on their way to the disciples, or did he appear to one woman after she had already reported the empty tomb? This is a clear contradiction in the narrative sequence of the very first appearance.

John is at dark before dawn, and Matthew is after dawn. Simple reporting of the Book as written, avoids imagined conflicts.

Desiring scholarship rather than simple reading, is an intellectual snare. Some people like things to be more complicated than they are. It's to 'easy' just to read and report.

[AchillesHeel]

John is at dark before dawn, and Matthew is after dawn.

I noticed you selectively quoted the discrepancies and left most out. Your response here doesn't change the fact that in Matthew the initial appearance to Mary happens before reaching any disciples but in John it's after telling Peter and the other disciple about the tomb.

So, again, which version of events actually happened? It cannot be both.

[1213]

The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof

I think that is why Christians are called believers. But, I think the same is also in all history, I don't think you can prove anything that happened long time ago.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person.

Those who told the stories thought what they saw is enough. For you, I don't think anything would be sufficient.

...whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels.

Yes, all atheists think Bible is not true. Should we care about their opinions?

In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus.

I think it is quite ridiculous to say Paul has the earliest testimony. If there was no earlier, who did Paul persecute before he turned Christian?

Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable

Please show one example of what can't be reconciled?

[AchillesHeel]

I think it is quite ridiculous to say Paul has the earliest testimony. If there was no earlier, who did Paul persecute before he turned

I'm referring to the earliest written testimony we have. Paul's letters are the earliest written Christian sources that exist to investigate today. Therefore, 1 Cor 15 is the earliest written source we have that talks about the Resurrection appearances.

Please show one example of what can't be reconciled?

It's right above in post #4
viewtopic.php?p=1176307&sid=76a04d54727 ... 2#p1176307

[RBD]

John is at dark before dawn, and Matthew is after dawn.

I noticed you selectively quoted the discrepancies and left most out. Your response here doesn't change the fact that in Matthew the initial appearance to Mary happens before reaching any disciples but in John it's after telling Peter and the other disciple about the tomb.

So, again, which version of events actually happened? It cannot be both.

I notice you selectively ignore the quotes that Mary was at the tomb in dark before dawn, and then after dawn.

If you're not going to report what the Book says, or ignore it, then what's the point of pretending to report on the Book? When you begin reporting on what the Book says, then we can talk about any perceived conflicts.

[RBD]

The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof

I think that is why Christians are called believers. But, I think the same is also in all history, I don't think you can prove anything that happened long time ago.

This is true with all writings and records. Take Code of Hammurabi stele for example. All we know is that a stele was produced at a certain age, that is supposed to list the laws of Hammarabi. But if someione is unwilling to believe it is accurate, then nothing can prove it.

The Bible is at least as old, and with as much detail and more, and yet if someone chooses not to believe it, then nothing can prove it's an accurate record. This includes any other records confirming the accuracy. That's why a personal choice not to believe something, is irrelevant to the accuracy of the written record.

There's also objective review of the record, to see if any conflicting errors can show the record is faulty. But, once again, as we see here, if someone is choosing not to believe the record in the first place, then their own subjective bias will not honestly review the record for consistency or fault. That of course can also include anyone choosing to believe it beforehand. That's where the arguments themselves will show an objective report, or a personally skewed false report.

In this case, the biased disbeliever proves a skewed report of the Book: First, that the earliest recorded testimony of Jesus' resurrection is not until the 50's A.D., as though no one testified of His resurrection beforehand. Second, that a supposed conflicting account of a person's visit to Jesus' tomb, fails to report that the person made two separate visits, one before dawn, and one after dawn.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person.

Those who told the stories thought what they saw is enough. For you, I don't think anything would be sufficient.

Obviously correct again. Several chapters of anal word study is used to imply, that no person actually 'saw' Jesus Christ bodily risen from the dead, when all the records report and preach that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and was seen by many witnesses.

It's a case-book study of overdone pseudo-scholarship, that only intends to divert from simple testimonial record.

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.


They want people to get embroiled in some meaningless word-definition game, rather than report what the Book plainly says.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

As we see here that the writers of the Book, especially Paul of Tarsus, were well acquainted with the old rhetorical tricks and sleights of hand.

...whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels.

Yes, all atheists think Bible is not true. Should we care about their opinions?

Well said. Disbelievers in a Book's record, turn to other disbelievers rejecting the record in scholarship form. Like no 'scholar' ever skewed the results by personal bias. Oh well, if a self-styled scholar says so, then it certainly must be so...The great thing about the Bible is written in grade-school vocabulary, so that anyone can read it for ourselves, to see for ourselves if what people say about it is so, or not. Including so-called apostles, teachers, and scholars...

Act 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus.

I think it is quite ridiculous to say Paul has the earliest testimony. If there was no earlier, who did Paul persecute before he turned Christian?

Excellent. Maybe because they were saying the Lord Jesus Christ was risen from the dead, whom the leaders had crucified?

Or maybe, because they stole the body and hid it elsewhere, like the unbelieving Jews reported? They were guilty as grave-robbers, and needed to be punished for them crime?

Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable

Please show one example of what can't be reconciled?

But first report on what the Book says, not on what someone says about it. Especially any 'scholars' that don't report on what the Book says, but only what they say about it, in scholarly fashion...