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]

I understand the distinction you are trying to make. However, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 does represent the beliefs of early Christianity and simply does not say anything explicit about the nature of the appearances.

Which automatically makes the earliest reference to the resurrection appearances ambiguous and thus it cannot serve as evidence anyone really saw a resurrected person.

I don’t think that necessarily follows.

Probabilistically, if Paul was wanting to equate the nature of the appearances, the phrasing "Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to them and appeared (ὤφθη) to me last" is exactly what we would expect! I don't know how anyone can honestly disagree with that. Paul does not say "Jesus appeared to the others before ascending to heaven whereas I had a different post-ascension vision" That distinction is never made in the creed. So the wording is more expected under the hypothesis of equation rather than the hypothesis of differentiation.

We’ve already agreed that ὤφθη has a wide range of usage. The use of ὤφθη for each appearance can also be understood as conveying that all the appearances were equally valid regardless of the mode. There’s nothing in the creed that necessarily commits it to equating the nature of the appearances.

The point is there is nothing in the creed that necessarily indicates the appearances were veridical which, again, is a requirement for the Resurrection argument to be persuasive. In order to confirm a resurrection occurred you have to establish people really saw the resurrected figure.

The text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 doesn’t explicitly comment on the nature of the appearances. We would have to turn other texts such as the Gospels/Acts to establish that.

This is a concession the earliest account, the only one written from a firsthand perspective, that is unanimously agreed upon as to its author and the only one from someone who claims to have met Peter and James - is ambiguous in regards to the nature of the appearances. While not fatal to the resurrection argument, it's a huge blow to the foundation of it.

The totality of the evidence does indicate this.

The totality of the evidence looks like a legend evolving with each subsequent account detailing an entirely different story of what took place. The stories in Luke and John look especially like they were invented for apologetic purposes. A fundamental tension arises when considering the chronology of resurrection narratives in the Gospels: the simultaneous claim of genuine doubt among Jesus’s followers in Galilee (Mt. 28:17) after having already seen/touched the Risen Jesus numerous times (Jn. 20:19-23, Lk. 24:13-49, Jn. 20:24-29), having their minds opened so they could "understand the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:45-46) and the repeated witnessing of Jesus performing miraculous events. These two elements are mutually exclusive in historical plausibility.

Combine this problem with the instructions in Mark and Matthew to go to Galilee to see Jesus and that's enough evidence to conclude the Jerusalem appearances were later secondary additions to the story.

We can speculate but the point is the creed isn’t trying to make a statement about the nature of the appearances. As far as the creed is concerned, the appearances could have been all different, they could have been all the same. That’s not the point being made by the creed. The point being made is that Jesus was seen by a variety of people.

Paul has already indicated the timing by placing himself last in the order combined with the use of εσχατον. The word Paul uses in relation to his experience is ἔκτρωμα (often translated as “untimely born”) which literally means a miscarriage/abortion. It implies Paul’s experience was anomalous in some way.

Wait a minute, you just said the nature of the appearances is not the point of the creed but now you're trying to says he's saying the nature of his experience was different? Which is it and how does Paul calling himself an abortion indicate the experience was different than the others?

"The extraordinary metaphor of ‘aborted foetus’ (ektrōma) caused endless trouble to commentators until Nickelsburg worked it out. It presupposes that Paul was called like a prophet from his mother’s womb (Gal. 1.15-16), and was as it were ‘born’ when he became the apostle to the Gentiles. Thus he was as it were ‘an aborted foetus’ when he was persecuting the church before his vocational ‘birth’. As was well known, the appearance of Jesus to him on the Damascus Road marked the point at which he ceased to persecute the churches and began to fulfil his vocation as apostle to the Gentiles." - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458

The five hundred weren’t disciples either. Nor was James a disciple if we accept this is a reference to James the brother of Jesus. Verse 9 is Paul’s admission that he is not worthy to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church.

Yes, he was different in that he persecuted the church cf. Gal. 1:13, the others did not. That doesn't make his experience different than theirs. The exact status of the 500 is not described and Paul's appearance directly follows the reference to "James, then to all the apostles." Paul was not an apostle, like the others were in the previous verse.

You’re just repeating your argument here. I’m asking you what is the evidential burden that needs to be met when considering ancient claims? What evidence must be provided to meet the evidential burden of proof? Firsthand accounts? Multiple accounts? Archaeological confirmation? Or something else? Rather than just asserting the resurrection fails to meet some undisclosed evidential bar, can you flesh out what that evidential bar is as it relates to ancient history?

I'm assessing the claim in question. In order to confirm a resurrection occurred, evidence needs to be provided that people really saw the resurrected figure. Do you dispute this? So far we've established the earliest and most reliable record is insufficient to establish anyone really saw a resurrected figure due to the term being more commonly reserved for spiritual appearances.

Your reasoning here would rule out much of the historical record since so much of it conflicts. Take for instance the extra-Biblical evidence we have for Pilate which comes to us from Philo and Josephus. Their respective accounts contradict one another to such a degree that some scholars question whether they are even referencing the same event. Using your reasoning those sources are disqualified.

I think last time we discussed this, I disagreed that Philo and Josephus were speaking about the same event regarding Pilate and so that is why their records were different. In contrast, the gospels are supposed to be written or derived from people who all witnessed the same event.

As for the resurrection narratives in the Gospels the core of the narratives are the same - death, burial, resurrection and appearances. It’s the secondary details that differ. It’s not unlike other accounts from ancient history in this regard.

The gospel narratives disagree on core elements - who saw Jesus first, where the appearances occurred, the nature of the appearances, whether they were ordered to stay in Jerusalem or go to Galilee, whether the women saw Jesus at all, whether Mary Magdalene was informed about the resurrection or not, etc. I have yet to see any other reliable historical records with this degree of discrepancy.

But Paul also uses the active form of ὁράω in regards to seeing Jesus.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen (εωρακα) Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? - 1 Cor 9:1

But the appearance is not described there either.

It doesn’t need to be. I’m using your reasoning that Paul uses the active form when he unambiguously refers to seeing someone.

Actually, it does because it's the context that determines the meaning, not the word itself. In regards to the active form in Gal. 1:19 he's talking about "seeing" James a person who was alive. This is not an ambiguous reference to "seeing" a formerly dead person who is possibly "appearing" to them from heaven like in the case of the Resurrection appearances. Same with Gal. 2:14. He's talking about literally seeing someone's behavior. Therefore, it's the active form of the verb plus the context that makes these unambiguous in regards to the seeing. Since no context is provided for the post-mortem "appearances" of Jesus, they are ambiguous.

Paul’s Damascus road experience as recorded in Acts shows that his experience with Jesus was different than the experiences of the disciples recorded in the Gospels.

According to the author of Acts but Paul himself in his letters indicates no such difference and you failed to acknowledge that this was not a normal "seeing" event which was the point of the reference. A normal seeing event would include the others with Paul seeing Jesus but they don't - Acts 9:7. I made sure to stipulate that this is only "if you believed this is what Paul actually experienced" but feel free to claim Acts is wrong I guess.

"Now I will remind you of the works of the Lord and describe the things I have seen (ἑόρακα)." - Sirach 42:15

What rhetorical purpose does evoking Sirach 42:15 serve? The contexts are entirely different, the word order doesn’t follow. Paul is asserting his apostleship on the grounds of having seen Jesus whereas in Sirach 42:15ff the things that have been seen are God’s natural creation. Which would only serve to undermine your argument if Paul is in fact evoking Sirach 42:15. In such a case Paul would be consciously borrowing from a text that uses the same word to describe things seen in the natural world. Moreover, if Paul did pull the active form ἑόρακα from Sirach 42:15 and use it in 1 Cor 9:1 we would expect him to do the same for the creed in 1 Cor 15. I think a better explanation is that 1 Corinthians 9:1 are Paul’s words whereas 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is Paul repeating the words of a creed.

If Paul is evoking Sirach 42:15, his choice of the active verb form ἑόρακα may not have been a conscious grammatical decision but rather a result of drawing from the phrasing of Sirach itself, either from memory or habitual usage of a familiar scriptural phrase.

Paul directly echoes all three key terms from Sirach 42:15 (ἔργον, κύριος, ἑόρακα). The parallels in function are even stronger - both passages use vision of divine works as a basis for authority and testimony. He is potentially reframing it - applying the wisdom tradition of seeing God's works to his gospel mission and apostleship.

This fits Paul's writing style elsewhere, adapting language without exact precision - Romans 1:17 ("the righteous shall live by faith") loosely echoes Habakkuk 2:4, adapting it for his theological needs. 1 Corinthians 2:9 seems to paraphrase Isaiah 64:4 rather than quote it directly.

The fact remains Paul uses the active form of ὁράω in relation to having seen Jesus. Your counterargument here is grounded in a double standard. On the one hand you argue 1:18-19 or 2:14 is unambiguous. But there are likewise no explicit details or description. Even one of your proof texts in Galatians 2:14 seems to imply seeing in a figurative sense.

There is no double standard. It's the form of the verb plus the context that determines the meaning. In the case of Galatians, Paul is talking about seeing James and behavior that he did not agree with. In the case of the resurrection appearances, we are not told whether or not they take place while Jesus is still located on the earth versus appearing to them from heaven. The former case is clearly referring to normal seeing while the latter is ambiguous. Moreover, if Acts is correct, Paul doesn't actually see a figure. Rather, he only sees a bright light and hears a voice in a vision.

In Plato's Crito 44 - "I conclude this from a dream which I had ἐνυπνίου ὃ ἑώρακα (lit. have seen) somewhat earlier tonight."

Genesis 41:15
And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I have had (lit. have seen) a dream ἐνύπνιον ἑώρακα, and there is no one who can interpret it. I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.”

Zec 4:2
He asked me, “What do you see?”
I replied, “I see (ἑώρακα) a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top. The lampstand also has seven lamps at the top with seven spouts for each of the lamps. - description of a vision

1 Sam 28:13
But the king said to her, “Don't be afraid. What do you see? ”

“I see (ἑόρακα) a spirit form coming up out of the earth,” the woman answered.

You’re having to go far afield (Plato?) to find support for your counter argument whereas my support was taken right from the New Testament. Indeed I provided an example of εωρακασιν being used for literally seeing Paul’s face taken from one of his letters if we hold that Colossians (2:1) was authored by Paul as the internal and external evidence suggests.

You're still neglecting the context. I also quoted 3 examples from the LXX and Sirach. The context of Colossians 2:1 isn't ambiguous in regards to whether Paul's face was "appearing" from heaven or not.

Ultimately these word study arguments are not advancing the argument one way or the other. Which I suspect is the objective of your overall argument. It’s not meant to prove anything, only to muddy the waters.

The word study thus far has shown the earliest and most reliable record provides no support for veridical appearances of a resurrected person which is a damaging blow to the case for the resurrection.

The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof.[/i] Now, rather than defend the assertion beyond repeating the argument, you are shifting the burden.

The burden is on the proponent of the resurrection to show these people really saw Jesus. It seems you've conceded the earliest evidence provides no support for that, forcing you to appeal to the later disputed gospels which all tell a totally different story.

And there it is, the strawman. Christian theology is not that Jesus resurrection appearances were “encounters with a formerly dead revived corpse.” I suggest you take some time to understand the Christian theology concerning the resurrected body. I think it will help you nuance your arguments in such a way that you aren’t knocking down this juvenile night of the living dead strawman.

It's not a strawman, it's literally what Luke describes in Lk. 24:39. Perhaps a more accurate way of putting it would be "veridical" sightings, experiences that involved really seeing the resurrected person and not in an ambiguous or supernatural/visionary way as that would just be question-begging.

Now, if you are making the argument that Paul's letters alone are insufficient to establish the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact, I can concede the point just as we might concede the letters of Cicero alone are insufficient to establish the assassination of Caesar as an historical fact.

Thanks. Just so we're clear.

1. Paul is the earliest source - so less time for any legends to develop due to being in closer proximity to the events.
2. Paul is the only person who records his testimony firsthand - 1 Cor 9:1, 1 Cor 15:8, Gal. 1:16. In contrast, none of the gospels contain any direct firsthand testimony.
3. Scholars are unanimous that Paul wrote at least seven of the letters attributed to him. In contrast, the authorship of the gospels is disputed.
4. Paul is the only source in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have met Peter and James, something the gospels never do.

Just so you understand, this necessitates your case for the resurrection will be based on later sources without any firsthand attestation from sources which scholars disagree over the reliability and authorship and do not internally claim to have directly met any eyewitnesses. This puts them on totally different level that Paul's letters in regards to what's most likely to be historically trustworthy.

[RBD]

But any suggestion that the accounts are doubtful due to publishing after the fact, is only personal opinion.

That's not what's being suggested.

Not by you perhaps, but certainly in the original argument.

The original argument is the usual 'scholarship' of the gospels being written by secondhand hearsay, and of course contradict themselves anyway.

By offhand dismissal of the gospels, it makes superfluous any attempt to say they conflict with Paul's testimony.

Historians do not treat historical records as 'stories'

From How the Gospels Became History by M. David Litwa, page 1:

This book compares stories in the canonical gospels with stories often
classified as Greek and Roman “myths.”

Of course, I know historians who depart from the field of expertise, in order to delve into the comparative religions/myths, especially with the Bible. But not in the history dept. They would move over to the classical literature and religions dept. Of, just write a book for public consumption and cash.

For me, I've spent time showing how many myths of ancient poets and priests, are the false misrepresentations of original history and spiritual truth. I.e. they skew the true record written in the Bible, not the other way around.

Unlike Herodotus, none of the Gospel accounts, Acts, epistles, nor Revelation ever speaks of repeating or consolidating 'stories' after the fact...In fact, they all are written as direct witness and direct revelation:

Which is why historians have such a difficult time separating fact from fiction in the the New Testament. The evangelists made no distinction between things like, "walking by the sea of Galilee, Jesus saw two brothers," and "many bodies of saints that had died were raised." One's possible and one's not, but both are presented as fact without comment.

It certainly does make it hard to find fiction among fact, when all that's found is unwanted facts.

In any case, no author nor book of mythology, ever makes disclaimers against myths and fables.

1Ti 1:4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

And no writer in the Bible ever lays claim to recording hearsay tales and legends, as Herodotus does from time to time.

Anyone speaking of any part of the NT as stories, is disqualified from historical debate about the events recorded.

Craig Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the New Testament:

Greek mythology contains accounts of gods and humans performing wonders similar to some of the New Testament miracle stories.

In case you don't recognize Blomberg's name, he's arguing here for the historical reliability of the New Testament. That's just how historians talk. You might want to spend some more time with the subject.

He's certainly not reviewing the historical record of the Bible, when going off on some tangent about there being books of myth in the world. And if he does insert it as part of his pseudo-historical review, then he's just showing his ideologically-bent and unprofessional hand, for false title advertising.

Which book is not found in any history dept, nor historical library section.

Once again, examples of the writers denying they are only reporting on fabulous stories. In fact, they warn against such fabled foolishness...

The following is the opening sentence to Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, a novel that involves time-travelling aliens shaped like plungers:

All this happened, more or less.

Correct, more or less...

Fiction sometimes says it's not fiction. So it goes.

A historian would note to errors here:

First, that saying something happened, more or less, is hearsay legend. Herodotus does so at times.

Second, Saying something happened more or less, is not claiming nonfiction, but is declaring hearsay legend.

Laymen venturing into unqualified areas of expertise, with their own dose of pseudo-historical/literary review, do not pay attention to factual detail, nor disciplined literary analysis. It's just an adventure, not a science...

[RBD]

As you rigorously confirm, nothing is said of Magdalene, the other Mary, nor Salome before 24:10. Nothing reports them joining the other still-unidentified women arriving at the same time.

If you're saying that since Mary Magdalene isn't named before Lk. 24:10, therefore she wasn't a member of the group of women in Lk. 23:55 - that is simply a non-sequitur.

If you're saying Magdalen had to be in the unidentified group, that is simply pre-conclusive assumption. Especially given the differing details between that group and Magdalene's.

Just compare Lk. 23:55 to the other gospels:

Lk. 23:55
"The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it."

Mk. 15:40-41, 47; 16:1-2
"Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there...Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."

Mt. 27:55-56, 61; 28:1
" Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons....Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb. In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."

Fair enough.

One point would be, that the Magdalene group had to buy the sweet spices on the 2nd day between the two sabbaths, the first being High, and the last being regular.

Another point proves that the many women from Galilee followed Joseph, not just Magdalene's personal little group:

Luk 23:55
And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

Not just some of the women, as you suggest at the beginning of your accounting, but the women from Galilee. That was the one sloppy point in your account, that you did later correct.

Now let's bookend with Lk. 24:1, 10.

"On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb....It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles."

Fair enough. One group with prepared spices and ointment was there. And there was Magdalene's group with their own bought sweet spices.

Then later all the women that had been there, including Magdalene's group and the other women, told the apostles of the events at the tomb.

One point again, the group preparing spices and ointment, had done so the first evening of Jesus Crucifixion.

Luk 23:55
And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.


They could not buy any after seeing the tomb, being the evening of the High Sabbath. And they certainly were keepers of the Sabbath according to the commandment. (I wouldn't be surprised that the account includes that little fact, so no one can reasonably argue that they bought their spices in the Sabbath evening on the way home...)

Another point being that Magdalene's group had bought sweet spices after the first high Sabbath on the 2nd day. Therefore, the two groups are made different by their possessions, and the manner of having them.

The reason Luke, who was dependent on Mark,

The reason anyone says one gospel writer was 'dependent' on another, is because of an assumption based upon another assumption, that the gospels were written based upon secondhand testimony, not personally their own. Which double assumptions are based upon unbelief in the Book's own testimony, that all writers were inspired to write independently nor by their own will, nor 'study', nor secondhand information...

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20K nowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

mentions Mary Magdalene in v. 10 is because she's one of the women who came with Jesus from Galilee, watched the burial and went to the tomb Sunday morning per the other gospels. That's why she was able to explain what happened to the apostles! Notice how Luke matches Mark verbatim in that the visit was "very early in the morning."

Of course. And nothing matches the other women and Magdalene's group arriving with each other as the same group.

Nor does any record say that they were all together at the same events at the tomb. Only that they were all together later telling the apostles the events. And so, the other women told their events at the tomb, and Magdalene's group also told their own events.

And the biggest point of all, is that in the night before any other women came in the morning, Magdalene alone had already visited the tomb, told Peter and the beloved apostle (I'll just say John), of the tomb being open, and then later again in the night told them of Jesus' appearance to her.

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.

And so we have confirmation that Magdalene came alone at night before the dawn, so that she first say Jesus alive, as well as later in the morning with the other women: 2 different visits and eyewitness.

Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Lord Jesus, and also the first witness to ever testify of His resurrection on earth. (And some radical activists say that the God of the Bible is chauvinistic, or even anti-women...)

It's the same exact visit. You can't wiggle out of this one.

Of course it's the same time of visit for all the many women from Galilee, that were at the tomb at least a second time.

No record states that all the many women came together, nor participated in the same events at the tomb. And why must they? Except by willful presumption alone.

No Scripture is by the personal will of man, nor can anyone change the Scripture by personal will alone...

You're also failing to see the contradiction in Mary first seeing Jesus prior to telling any disciples versus telling disciples first then seeing Jesus afterwards. It doesn't matter how many "visits" you invent. You cannot have the first appearance of Jesus to Mary be both before and after telling disciples. It can only be one or the other.

You can continue to deny the difference between one visit and eyewitness at night, and another visit and eyewitness in the morning. That's a non sequitur, that's unreal.

You've also wiggled out of responding to the proofs I gave, that one group of the many women from Galilee, was not the same group of Magdalene's in the morning at the tomb.

Which means all the events at the tomb, were not necessarily with all the many women together.

Point: it's not possible for all the women to have participated in all the same events at the tomb: The tomb was not large enough for all of them to enter at the same time...In fact, Magdalene's small group may have been too many at one time.

All that remains is to review the different events at the tomb in the morning...Hint: They certainly allow for different groups participating in different events in the area. It was not a controlled tour guide...Which would then all be recounted to the apostles, which is the only recording of them being all together at the same time, and doing the same thing...

[Difflugia]

The original argument is the usual 'scholarship' of the gospels being written by secondhand hearsay, and of course contradict themselves anyway.

I'm pretty sure you aren't reading that right. The OP says that they're doubtful because they contradict Paul and each other. Unless you mean that it's invalid to give Paul the benefit of the doubt because he was first, but even if so, that just means that Paul and the Gospels are all mutually contradictory and we can't pick any of them.

By offhand dismissal of the gospels, it makes superfluous any attempt to say they conflict with Paul's testimony.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one making offhand dismissals. The OP and subsequent comments have provided specific details. All I've seen from you is a confused idea of what "eyewitness testimony" means.

Of course, I know historians who depart from the field of expertise, in order to delve into the comparative religions/myths, especially with the Bible. But not in the history dept. They would move over to the classical literature and religions dept. Of, just write a book for public consumption and cash.

Is your argument that historians don't consider the Bible to be history, then? Otherwise, I don't know what you're trying to say.

For me, I've spent time showing how many myths of ancient poets and priests, are the false misrepresentations of original history and spiritual truth. I.e. they skew the true record written in the Bible, not the other way around.

So, you disagree with historians and their methods? Shocker.

It certainly does make it hard to find fiction among fact, when all that's found is unwanted facts.

"And while he blessed them, he left them and was carried up into heaven."

Unwanted facts!

In any case, no author nor book of mythology, ever makes disclaimers against myths and fables.

1Ti 1:4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Considering that both 1 Timothy and 2 Peter weren't written by their claimed authors, you picked interesting examples.

And no writer in the Bible ever lays claim to recording hearsay tales and legends, as Herodotus does from time to time.

Neither does Odysseus, the first-person narrator of the Odyssey. Was the cyclops real?

He's certainly not reviewing the historical record of the Bible, when going off on some tangent about there being books of myth in the world. And if he does insert it as part of his pseudo-historical review, then he's just showing his ideologically-bent and unprofessional hand, for false title advertising.

So, your argument is that no true Scotsman would ever describe the Bible narrative as "stories," then?

Laymen venturing into unqualified areas of expertise, with their own dose of pseudo-historical/literary review, do not pay attention to factual detail, nor disciplined literary analysis. It's just an adventure, not a science...

I'll be sure to be careful if I run across an unqualified layman.

[Capbook]

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.

Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke used the word "appeared" in Greek as "ωφθη," "ὁράω horaō," and "οφθεις". Of which the three of them were assigned the same Strong number as G3708 which Bible lexicon defined as to see with the eyes, to see, to look to, I was seen, showed myself, appeared and etc.

Would those definition still not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person? As had been seen with the eyes?


(NASB+) 1Co 15:8  and lastG2078 of allG3956, as N1to oneG1626 untimelyG1626 bornG1626, R1He appearedG3708 to me alsoG2532. 

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) 1Co 15:8  εσχατονG2078 A-ASM-S δεG1161 CONJ παντωνG3956 A-GPM ωσπερειG5619 ADV τωG3588 T-DSN εκτρωματιG1626 N-DSN ωφθηG3708 V-API-3S καμοιG2504 P-1DS-K 

(NASB+) Act 9:17  SoG3704 AnaniasG367 departedG565 and enteredG1525 the houseG3614, and after R1layingG2007 his handsG5495 on him saidG3004, “R2BrotherG80 SaulG4549, the LordG2962 JesusG2424, who appearedG3708 to you on the roadG3598 by whichG3739 you were comingG2064, has sentG649 me soG3704 thatG3704 you may regainG308 your sightG308 and be R3filledG4092a with the HolyG40 SpiritG4151.” 

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) Act 9:17  απηλθενG565 V-2AAI-3S δεG1161 CONJ ανανιαςG367 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ εισηλθενG1525 V-2AAI-3S ειςG1519 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF οικιανG3614 N-ASF καιG2532 CONJ επιθειςG2007 V-2AAP-NSM επG1909 PREP αυτονG846 P-ASM ταςG3588 T-APF χειραςG5495 N-APF ειπενG3004 V-2AAI-3S σαουλG4549 N-PRI αδελφεG80 N-VSM οG3588 T-NSM κυριοςG2962 N-NSM απεσταλκενG649 V-RAI-3S μεG1473 P-1AS ιησουςG2424 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM οφθειςG3708 V-APP-NSM σοιG4771 P-2DS ενG1722 PREP τηG3588 T-DSF οδωG3598 N-DSF ηG3739 R-DSF ηρχουG2064 V-INI-2S οπωςG3704 ADV αναβλεψηςG308 V-AAS-2S καιG2532 CONJ πλησθηςG4130 V-APS-2S πνευματοςG4151 N-GSN αγιουG40 A-GSN 

G3708
ὁράω horaō
Thayer Definition:
1) to see with the eyes
2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know
3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
4) to see, to look to
4a) to take heed, beware
4b) to care for, pay heed to
5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared

[Difflugia]

Would those definition still not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person? As had been seen with the eyes?

No. If your lexicon is Thayer, as you seem to indicate at the end of your comment, then you can see different potential meanings there that contradict your claim.

Forms of orao take on roughly the same range of literal and metaphorical uses in Greek that "look" and "see" do in English. In your lexicon entry itself, you have entries for "see with the mind" and "to experience." The LSJ entry lists a number of other uses in Greek literature that parallel the variety of uses in English. One could see a person, see a ghost, see in a vision, or see what I mean.

If you're going to make an argument by grammar, you'll have to examine how different authors used different word constructions. As an English example, consider the subtle difference between the words view and visualize. Both could be considered to have the same literal meaning, but they are used differently in practice. Just looking at a root with an associated list of potential meanings is the broadest of strokes.

[RBD]

Seems RBD is trying to bury this thread in three separate comments while refusing to respond to the fact that Mary Magdalene was one of the women in Luke 23:55. viewtopic.php?p=1176609&sid=7350f7a5758 ... 1#p1176609

This is used to somehow mean Paul was the first person to ever testify of Jesus's resurrection:

Not at all.

No problem.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15).This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me"

You can correct the clear appearance of claiming Paul's testimony is the earliest earliest testimony. And simply say, it's the earliest published record of an eyewitness testimony to Jesus' resurrection...The gospel records are published later. It would be just a simple review of dating public records. Not of suggesting, it's the first eyewitness testimony after the event.

In any case, Paul's testimony of Jesus' resurrection was not the first eyewitness account on record. The gospels record eyewitness testimonies beginning the day of His resurrection, as well as preaching His resurrection 49 days later.

The point was to show that Paul seemingly equates the appearance to him (which was a vision)

Which was argued as a vision by word-definition alone. Anyone can declare their personal argument is true, but it's irrelevant to the truth.

with the appearances to the others in the earliest written testimony we have in regards to the Resurrection witnesses. So the inference is that they all had post-ascension visions like he had

Haven't seen this attempted argument. The only argument so far with the gospels, is trotting out the usual 'scholars' denouncing the them as secondhand legends, and self-contradictory.

In any case, the attempted word-definition play on Paul's testimony, has nothing to do with those of the gospel records, where they saw Him with their own eyes.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words,

and the stories evolve more fantastic later on with embellishments involving touching a fully revivified corpse that is witnessed floating into the sky.

Hence, the 'scholars' playing mythological experts, who obviously don't know what a myth is.

As well as don't know how to keep their pretence of scholarship hidden.

The argument then states any other published records of the testimony of others, is somehow disqualified, since it's not written firsthand, like Paul.

Therefore, the published Gospel accounts can be set aside as 'only' secondhand hearsay stories, and not firsthand witness accounts of the writers. This is arranged by reverting to the the 'scholarly' reviews, who conclude in most scholarly fashion, that they are voila, in fact not written by any eyewitness in the account, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Not "disqualified" but of less importance historically in comparison to a verified firsthand eyewitness account.

No problem. The gospel accounts aren't disqualified as mere secondhand legends. (Though they are ridiculed as sky-floating myths...)

Why on earth would you put more stock in the truth of a disputed and later source than an earlier and verified firsthand account?

No one would, if there were a factual dispute to their veracity.

But, the claims of verified unbelieving scholars playing historian, is irrelevant to the veracity of the historical accounts.

Does any historian on earth do this?

No historian doing historical work, would treat the historical record as mythical sky-floating. Only biased hacks. Worse yet, unprofessional hacks, that can't keep their biased mockery hidden.

And though once again, I haven't seen the argument against Rev 1, where John is also publishing his own eyewitness account, the same above argument could apply due to it's even greater lateness..

Would that be the John in Revelation who was describing a vision he had too?

That would be John seeing with his own eyes, the Person that is nowhere said to be a vision.

Any claim of only a vision, therefore has nothing to do with the record, but only proves record-tampering ideologues, posing as historical and literary researchers.

Feel free to respond to my comments directly.

So, all we have is a long-winded exercise of word-definition play, for one eyewitness testimony. Pseudo-scholarship to disqualify all the other recorded eyewitnesses. And finally, inventing a vision, where another eyewitness records seeing a person with their own eyes. Oh yes, and exposing personal bias by mocking it all as fantastic sky-floating.

Using someone else's post to refer to my arguments seems very disingenuous.

I responded to the content of the post. I also then wrote the same in response to the original post. It's not like I'm hiding anything, or pretending to be something I'm not.

[RBD]

This pseudo 'qualifier' for historical review, of course, disqualifies most ancient and present historical records, including published stenography of court testimony.

This isn’t even remotely true. For impactful historical figures like Julius Caesar, we have multiple contemporaneous independent attestation, enemy attestation, historical events that would only work if they existed (like the founding of the Roman Empire), and physical artifacts as well.

The argument is that only firsthand records of testimony, qualify as historical evidence. Secondary sources are disqualified, or suspect at best.

Which would therefore include all the other historical records mentioned here. Hence, most ancient and present historical records, would be discounted as authoritative.

Especially, when they are the only records at hand. The point being, that firsthand records are no more qualified than secondhand, when reviewing the authenticity of the record itself.

Firsthand records can be as false, as any secondhand account.

Court records are corroborated by documentation that requires independent attestation and usually physical evidence, or records of it after a certain time has passed.

Once again, publishing trial records depend solely upon the secondhand record of the court secretary, which is suspect at best, according to the pseudo-historical review rule, that only firsthand accounts qualify as evidence.

If no other record is published, then according to this standard applied to all the Bible testimonies of the event at hand, only one is allowed.

What your impute does, is simply show the obvious: That only firsthand accounts are acceptable, is a biased amateurish rule.

[Haven]

The argument is that only firsthand records of testimony, qualify as historical evidence. Secondary sources are disqualified, or suspect at best.

Who is making that argument? Certainly not me. I think we can include secondary sources, but that they should be weighted less than primary sources, which should be weighted less than physical evidence and artifacts. This is the general consensus of historians.

It’s not “either-or,” it’s “both-and.” History isn’t an exact science.

What I will say is that supernatural claims carry a higher burden of proof, since the existence of the supernatural would require rejecting every single piece of background evidence and the scientific method altogether. To overturn all the existing evidence against the supernatural, strong evidence would be needed and secondary (or even primary) accounts would not be sufficient. Only physical evidence would be sufficient.

[AchillesHeel]

Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke used the word "appeared" in Greek as "ωφθη," "ὁράω horaō," and "οφθεις". Of which the three of them were assigned the same Strong number as G3708 which Bible lexicon defined as to see with the eyes, to see, to look to, I was seen, showed myself, appeared and etc.

Would those definition still not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person? As had been seen with the eyes?


(NASB+) 1Co 15:8  and lastG2078 of allG3956, as N1to oneG1626 untimelyG1626 bornG1626, R1He appearedG3708 to me alsoG2532. 

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) 1Co 15:8  εσχατονG2078 A-ASM-S δεG1161 CONJ παντωνG3956 A-GPM ωσπερειG5619 ADV τωG3588 T-DSN εκτρωματιG1626 N-DSN ωφθηG3708 V-API-3S καμοιG2504 P-1DS-K 

(NASB+) Act 9:17  SoG3704 AnaniasG367 departedG565 and enteredG1525 the houseG3614, and after R1layingG2007 his handsG5495 on him saidG3004, “R2BrotherG80 SaulG4549, the LordG2962 JesusG2424, who appearedG3708 to you on the roadG3598 by whichG3739 you were comingG2064, has sentG649 me soG3704 thatG3704 you may regainG308 your sightG308 and be R3filledG4092a with the HolyG40 SpiritG4151.” 

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) Act 9:17  απηλθενG565 V-2AAI-3S δεG1161 CONJ ανανιαςG367 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ εισηλθενG1525 V-2AAI-3S ειςG1519 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF οικιανG3614 N-ASF καιG2532 CONJ επιθειςG2007 V-2AAP-NSM επG1909 PREP αυτονG846 P-ASM ταςG3588 T-APF χειραςG5495 N-APF ειπενG3004 V-2AAI-3S σαουλG4549 N-PRI αδελφεG80 N-VSM οG3588 T-NSM κυριοςG2962 N-NSM απεσταλκενG649 V-RAI-3S μεG1473 P-1AS ιησουςG2424 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM οφθειςG3708 V-APP-NSM σοιG4771 P-2DS ενG1722 PREP τηG3588 T-DSF οδωG3598 N-DSF ηG3739 R-DSF ηρχουG2064 V-INI-2S οπωςG3704 ADV αναβλεψηςG308 V-AAS-2S καιG2532 CONJ πλησθηςG4130 V-APS-2S πνευματοςG4151 N-GSN αγιουG40 A-GSN 

G3708
ὁράω horaō
Thayer Definition:
1) to see with the eyes
2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know
3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
4) to see, to look to
4a) to take heed, beware
4b) to care for, pay heed to
5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared

You just quoted a list of definitions, one of which, is "to see with the mind." The context determines the meaning. In my second post I quote all the aorist passive instances in the New Testament. 95%+ occurrences are in reference to visions or supernatural appearances, not normal seeing events.