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]

The gospels record eyewitness testimonies beginning the day of His resurrection, as well as preaching His resurrection 49 days later.

Yes, and each account tells a totally different story of what took place which is a reason to distrust the testimony. This is the exact same method detectives and lawyers use in court to impugn and scrutinize testimony. There is no other set of eyewitness testimony about the same event with this same degree of discrepancies.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41563

For instance, we can compare eyewitness accounts of Lincoln's assassination vs the Resurrection reports. Lincoln’s assassination accounts show consistent agreement on core facts (Booth shot Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre; Lincoln mortally wounded; Booth escaped), with variations limited to peripheral details (exact words shouted, timing, sequence of small actions, Booth’s landing). Differences stem from perspective, omission, or emphasis, but remain reconcilable.

The Gospel resurrection narratives, by contrast, differ on core elements (who saw Jesus first, where appearances occurred, nature of the body, whether told to go to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem), contain contradictions and unique supernatural claims (e.g., Matthew’s saints), and evolve across sources. These are not peripheral variations but foundational disagreements, making harmonization an obvious case of special pleading.

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.

So Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus before he went to heaven and didn't have a vision of a bright light on the Damascus Road? Wow! What version of "The Book" are you reading says this?

My version of Acts 26:19 says this:

"I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven" - Paul speaking in regards to his vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road

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.

None of the gospels contain any direct firsthand eyewitness testimony. They are all just third person claims that contradict one another in regards to what actually occurred. The later accounts are unique to each gospel and are equally explained as being invented for apologetic purposes. We have reports of witnesses to Vespasian's miraculous healings, Bigfoot sightings and UFO abductions. Any story can say a person saw something. That's not sufficient to believe what the claim is especially when it's a supernatural event which has never been observed before or since.

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

Keep quoting that Bible preacher man!

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.

Yes.

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

The context of Revelation 1:9-20 describes a vision while John is "in the spirit" - v.10. In annotated Bibles the section is called "John's vision of Christ." This is of no more evidentiary value than a person hallucinating on drugs. So that's two firsthand testimonies in the Bible, both of which were visions!

[Capbook]

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.

Yes, Thayer includes such other definitions, but EDNT defines Greek "ὁράω" as "the basic meaning is see with the eyes."
And when used figuratively, it's different but not the basic meaning of it. The same definition rendered by Louw and Nida, TDNT and Vine's.

I believe those definition is now sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person. As had been seen with the eyes as the basic meaning of the Greek term in question.


NT:3708 (EDNT)
The basic meaning of ὁράω is see (with the eyes). The act. forms refer to the activity implicit in the act of seeing, and the mid. fut. forms to the subjective aspect. When used fig., means perceive, recognize, experience, visit, consider.
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

NT:3708 (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
ὁράω 'to see,
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

NT:3708 (TDNT)
ὁράω from Hom., absolute "to see," "to look"
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved.)

NT:3708 (Vine's)
ὁράω to see," in various senses, is translated "to look," in the KJV of John 7:52
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

[AchillesHeel]

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.

Yes, Thayer includes such other definitions, but EDNT defines Greek "ὁράω" as "the basic meaning is see with the eyes."
And when used figuratively, it's different but not the basic meaning of it. The same definition rendered by Louw and Nida, TDNT and Vine's.

I believe those definition is now sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person. As had been seen with the eyes as the basic meaning of the Greek term in question.


NT:3708 (EDNT)
The basic meaning of ὁράω is see (with the eyes). The act. forms refer to the activity implicit in the act of seeing, and the mid. fut. forms to the subjective aspect. When used fig., means perceive, recognize, experience, visit, consider.
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

NT:3708 (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
ὁράω 'to see,
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

NT:3708 (TDNT)
ὁράω from Hom., absolute "to see," "to look"
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved.)

NT:3708 (Vine's)
ὁράω to see," in various senses, is translated "to look," in the KJV of John 7:52
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

It's not sufficient because Paul's letters do not describe the nature of the appearances or whether they believed Jesus "appeared" to them before going to heaven vs afterward. If you could show the earliest Christians believed the former then you'd have a point but Paul is ambiguous on that front so all you're left with is the vague aorist passive term "appeared" which was more commonly used for theophanies, visions, supernatural revelations and the like. Plus, there's the inconvenient fact that Paul includes his own "vision" in the list of appearances while using the same exact term for all the others and making no distinction regarding their nature. This shows claims of "visions" constituted what early Christians would accept as an "appearance" of the Risen Christ, otherwise Paul wouldn't have placed his vision in the list.

"A first breakthrough was by a brief article by A. M. Ramsey, in which he questioned the theory that the resurrection and the ascension in the apostolic preaching were two separate events in time. He argued that the allusions in Acts (Acts 2:32,33; 5:30,31) and the epistles (Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Phil 2:8,9; Eph 1:19-20; 1 Tim 3:16;1 Pet 3:21,22 and Hebrews) do not give a clear testimony to a belief that there had been an ascension distinct in time from the resurrection; in the Fourth Gospel, death, resurrection, and ascension (visible in Jn. 6:62; 20:17) are drawn together as in one single act. Like Mt 28 and Mk (14:62; 16:7), Acts 1 describes a theophany (that is, a manifestation of the already ascended Lord)." - Arie Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, pg. 11.

“If in the earliest stage of tradition resurrection and exaltation were regarded as one event, an uninterrupted movement from grave to glory, we may infer that the appearances were ipso facto manifestations of the already exalted Lord, hence: appearances ‘from heaven’ (granted the the act of exaltation/enthronement took place in heaven). Paul seems to have shared this view. He regarded his experience on the road to Damascus as a revelation of God’s son in/to him (Gal 1:16), that is, as an encounter with the exalted Lord. He defended his apostleship with the assertion he had ‘seen the Lord’ (1 Cor 9:1) and did not hesitate to put his experience on equal footing with the apostolic Christophanies (1 Cor 15:8).” ibid, pg. 129

"However, Paul’s understanding that a few years later he could still have a resurrection appearance fits well with another way in which the New Testament writers at times envision Jesus’ resurrection. They frequently view his resurrection as his exaltation to heaven and his enthronement and empowerment in the heavenly sphere (Rom 1:3–4; Phil 2:5–11; 1 Thess 1:9–10; Col 2:12–15). In this case, resurrection and ascension become a single process, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus are made from heaven. This means that whether they occurred right after the resurrection or several years later would make no difference." - James H. Charlesworth, Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine, pg. 197

"Some contend that exaltation was the earliest conception of Jesus’s afterlife, due to no clear explication of it in Paul’s writings apart from some passages that may imply it (e.g., Rom 8:34; 10:6–7; Col 3:1; 1 Tim 3:16; cf. 1 Pet 3:21–22). Such passages are not altogether clear that they are talking about the ascension, at least as it is depicted in Luke-Acts. It might also be argued that such interpretations involve reading Luke’s depiction of the ascension back into the Pauline passages. Others see resurrection and exaltation as one and the same (e.g., Phil 2:9; 2 Cor 4:4; cf. John 6:62, 10:17), in that there is contained within the notion of exaltation the necessity of the resurrection. Some see ascension as implied in the resurrection as possibly a resurrection-exaltation complex (e.g., 1 Cor 15:4, 12–28; Eph 1:20)." - Stanley Porter, Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke's Narrative Hinge, pg. 120.

[RBD]

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.

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

Unless you mean that it's invalid to give Paul the benefit of the doubt because he was first,

It's invalid to only give firsthand accounts the benefit of doubt, and no secondhand account any benefit at all.

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.

My dismissals of the usual 'scholars' declaring the gospels secondhand contradictory legends, is not offhand per se, but the result of having studied their usual pseudo-scholarship in the past.

And since no examples are given, but only a usual dismissal of the gospels offhand, by referring to such 'scholarship', then it's appropriate to dismiss the 'scholars' in turn.

The OP and subsequent comments have provided specific details. All I've seen from you is a confused idea of what "eyewitness testimony" means.

The only confusion about eyewitness testimony, is with an imaginary ad-hoc rule against secondary sources, that would rule out most past and modern records of eyewitness accounts. Especially when only pseudo-scholarship declares the gospels as secondary in the first place.

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.

There are plenty of historians that treat the Bible as history, and there are plenty of historians that treat the Bible as fictional legend and myth. But none of them review the Bible as their expertise in a history dept class. They move over to the literature and religious depts.

It's misleading to quote 'historians' concluding such and such about the Bible. Rather than are historians, who also happen to be amateur Bible reviewers. Bible 'scholars' are not the same as experts in the fields of science, biology, history, etc... So-called Bible 'scholars' can be just as much a hack and as anyone else, but only put more time into it, and sound more 'scholarly'.

1Ti 1:7
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

2Ti 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In fact, when someone claims to be a Bible scholar, I'm more skeptical of their objectivity:

Jhn 7:15
And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?


Many scholars are so pumped up with their own learning, that they think anyone not taught by them must be an illiterate boob.

"There are two kinds of ignorant in the world. The educated and uneducated, and the most ignorant are the most often the educated sort..."

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.

See above. Not historians in the fields of their expertise, but so-called scholarship hacks, adapting analysis of the Book to confirm their desired conclusion.

And anyone not knowing the difference between the Bible and myth, doesn't know what makes a myth.

No book of myth ever gives a disclaimer as not being a myth:

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

2Pe 1:16
For 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.

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.

Seeing that claiming they weren't written by their authors, is old, meaningless, and uninteresting.

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?

And anyone not knowing the difference between the Bible and myth, doesn't know what makes a myth.

No book of myth ever gives a disclaimer as not being a myth:

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

2Pe 1:16
For 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.

[RBD]

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?

AchillesHeel wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 10:52 am
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"...


AchillesHeel wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 10:52
Any 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.

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.

True on the most part. Ruling out the secondary sources is the problem.

In any case, it doesn't apply to the gospel accounts in the first place, since only certain 'scholars' have concluded they were not written firsthand as attested to, but make them only secondhand accounts, of hearsay stories and legends...

Jhn 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

It's obvious tactical gamesmanship: First tarnish the authors, and then defame the record as a misleading lie.

What I will say is that supernatural claims carry a higher burden of proof,

This is not about proving the accounts true. It's a literary debate about authorship and internal integrity.

Faith in things unseen, still requires faith. But so long as the eyewitness accounts remain consistently reliable, then no one can so they can't be rationally believed.

In such a debate, it's only the objective disciplined review that matters. No one cares whether anyone is convinced to personally believe them are not.

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.

In this regard, there is no existing physical evidence against the supernatural, but only evidence of the natural.

Once again, no one is trying to prove a negative, but only reviewing the record as consistent without conflict. The supernatural record in the Bible can be reasonably disproven, if the record is proven faulty and in error.

if that which we can see and analyze is unerring, the Book itself, then the unseen things can be believed from the same unerring source. If that which we can see is proving errant, then the unseen things can be dismissed as equally flawed.

[RBD]

The gospels record eyewitness testimonies beginning the day of His resurrection, as well as preaching His resurrection 49 days later.

Yes, and each account tells a totally different story of what took place which is a reason to distrust the testimony.

Yes, and each account tells the totally true story without conflict, which is reason to trust the testimony.

You see how that works.

This is the exact same method detectives and lawyers use in court to impugn and scrutinize testimony.

Objective detectives and lawyers scrutinize testimony, in order to confirm or impugn.

Personal bias impugns first, and then plays at scrutiny later.

There is no other set of eyewitness testimony about the same event with this same degree of discrepancies.

There is no other set of eyewitness testimony about the same event with the same degree of consistency.

Works every time it's tried.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41563

Not interested in following rabbit hole. If there a single example, then give it, and we'll scrutinize.

The Gospel resurrection narratives, by contrast, differ on core elements (who saw Jesus first, where appearances occurred, nature of the body, whether told to go to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem), contain contradictions and unique supernatural claims(e.g., Matthew’s saints), and evolve across sources.

These are not peripheral variations but foundational disagreements, making harmonization an obvious case of special pleading.

The Gospel resurrection narratives, by comparison, agree on core elements (who saw Jesus first, where appearances occurred, nature of the body, whether told to go to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem), contain consistencies and unique supernatural claims. (e.g., Matthew’s saints), and compliment across sources.

These are exact variations with foundational agreement, making harmonization an obvious case of objective reading.

Getting funner all the time.

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.

So Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus before he went to heaven and didn't have a vision of a bright light on the Damascus Road? Wow! What version of "The Book" are you reading says this?

Certainly not the Bible. Saul of Tarsus may have met Jesus before the cross, but certainly not before He ascended to heaven after His resurrection. He was only seen by the apostles and disciples for 40 days on earth.

My version of Acts 26:19 says this:

"I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven" - Paul speaking in regards to his vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road

Probably.

1Co 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul speaking in regards to seeing Jesus, the same as the apostles and many others after His resurrection.

Not a light shining out of heaven.

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.

None of the gospels contain any direct firsthand eyewitness testimony.

Which in historical review is not a disqualifier.

And which in the case of the gospel records, is false:

Jhn 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

They are all just third person claims that contradict one another in regards to what actually occurred.

They are all first person claims that compliment one another in regards to what actually occurred.

Getting old.

The later accounts are unique to each gospel and are equally explained as being invented for apologetic purposes.

The later published accounts are unique to each gospel and are equally explained as being recorded for believable purposes.

Jhn 20:30
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

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

The context of Revelation 1:9-20 describes a vision while John is "in the spirit" - v.10.

The context of Revelation 1:9-20 records John seeing the Lord Jesus on Patmos, in the spirit on the Lord's day.

Don't read of any vision.

In annotated Bibles the section is called "John's vision of Christ."

No doubt the same ones annotating Rev 1 with a vision, rather than John seeing the Lord Jesus on Patmos, in the spirit on the Lord's day.

This is of no more evidentiary value than a person hallucinating on drugs.

And Timothy Leary was one of the annotators.

So that's two firsthand testimonies in the Bible, both of which were visions!

So that's two firsthand testimonies in the Bible, neither of which were visions!

So, it's been fun, but already old. In future, if you have examples, then I'll be glad to look at them. Otherwise, I'll not bother correcting meaningless diatribes. Even well learned ones...

2Ti 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Haven]

[Replying to RBD in post #55]

I don’t think you’re being fair to Achilles’ Heel here. If there’s no claim of authorship in the text and no way to verify the origin of the accounts (aside from church history centuries after the fact), then it’s reasonable to conclude that the gospels are not firsthand accounts - or at the very least, that there’s no way to verify their provenance.

Moreover, it’s well-established that the three synoptic gospels drew on both Mark (the earliest-written gospel, and crucially one without any resurrection appearances detailed in it) and a “sayings” (of Jesus) document called Q, now lost. The Synoptics also drew on church legends, hearsay common among early Christians (including those with and without connection to the historical Jesus) - and there is, of course, no way to verify their claims.

Considering all this, and the evangelistic, hagiographical and miraculous nature of the writings, it’s easy to conclude that they are not reliable historical texts and their claims should be approached with skepticism.

You may argue the same thing about other historical writings (like the Iliad), but historians don’t accept these writings at face value. They match up their claims with physical elements and, crucially, discount the supernatural claims and other supernormal statements as unreliable. The Bible, on the other hand, is believed (by Christians) to be the literal word of God and above analysis and reproach…which is exactly why fundamentalist scholars’ claims should be weighted lower than those of non-fundamentalists. They literally cannot do Biblical criticism, or treat the text like any other ancient writing, on pain of heresy and (in their beliefs) eternal torment.

Edit: on naturalism vs. supernaturalism: because they are mutually exclusive and exhaustive positions, the lack of evidence for the supernatural is itself indirect evidence of naturalism via the law of the excluded middle. Even if that were not the case, however, the fact that there is no evidence of any supernatural occurrences means that those advocating supernaturalism bear the burden of proof here, and must overcome very low prior probabilities to make their case. Even if the gospel accounts were confirmed to be firsthand and independent, that would still not be enough to justify accepting supernatural claims.

We have independent, firsthand accounts of the supernatural in Mormon writings, in Swaminarayan Hinduism (which claims an ordinary man was God, similar to Christians…but their claimant was born in the 1800s and his own writings survive to this day), even in Transcendental Meditation from the 1960s-2000s. None of this justifies accepting these belief systems as true.

[Capbook]

It's not sufficient because Paul's letters do not describe the nature of the appearances or whether they believed Jesus "appeared" to them before going to heaven vs afterward. If you could show the earliest Christians believed the former then you'd have a point but Paul is ambiguous on that front so all you're left with is the vague aorist passive term "appeared" which was more commonly used for theophanies, visions, supernatural revelations and the like. Plus, there's the inconvenient fact that Paul includes his own "vision" in the list of appearances while using the same exact term for all the others and making no distinction regarding their nature. This shows claims of "visions" constituted what early Christians would accept as an "appearance" of the Risen Christ, otherwise Paul wouldn't have placed his vision in the list.

Anyone can give their personal definition of Bible words, specially to this case, the word "vision."
In Acts 26:19, it speaks about not just "vision" but "heavenly vision" in Greek "ouranios optasia."
Where Bible lexicons defined it as a sight, an appearance presented to one, Luke is not calling this a vision, Paul himself does not use the term for the Damascus incident, and etc.
As there are various meaning of "vision or heavenly vision" by the lexicon, he might be referring to the other definition as "sight, or an appearance presented to one."

And even from Jesus words in Acts 26:16, the word "appeared" "ὁράω" again is defined as "the basic meaning is see with the eyes."
The same definition rendered by Louw and Nida, TDNT and Vine's.

Act 26:19  “For that reason, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, 
Act 26:19  “ForG3606 thatG3606 reasonG3606, KingG935 AgrippaG67, I did not proveG1096 disobedientG545 to the heavenlyG3770 visionG3701, 

NT:3701
In the NT "optasia" "vision" in Luke 1:22; 24:23 refers to angelophanies. These could be called visions only if the sense "visionary appearance" were firmly established, but this is not so. The appearance outside Damascus is called an "ouranios optasia." in Acts 26:19. In terms of current usage Luke is not calling this a vision, and he commonly uses for it, ® supra. Less, or even no emphasis at all is placed on the visual element.
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved.)

NT:3701
optasía.
This noun is an uncommon one. It occurs only four times in the LXX in the sense "appearing" (cf. Est 4:17; Mal 3:2). In Luke 1:22; 24:23 it refers to angelophanies, and the Damascus appearance is called a heavenly
optasía in Acts 26:19. There is little emphasis on the visionary aspect in either Luke or Acts; the stress lies on the revelation by word and the demand for obedience. Paul himself does not use the term for the Damascus incident.
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

G3701
ὀπτασία optasia
Thayer Definition:
1) the act of exhibiting one’s self to view
2) a sight, a vision, an appearance presented to one whether asleep or awake

Act 26:16  ‘But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you as a servant and a witness not only to the things in which you have seen Me, but also to the things in which I will appear to you,

NT:3708 (EDNT)
The basic meaning of ὁράω is see (with the eyes). The act. forms refer to the activity implicit in the act of seeing, and the mid. fut. forms to the subjective aspect. When used fig., means perceive, recognize, experience, visit, consider.
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

NT:3708 (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
ὁράω 'to see,
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

NT:3708 (TDNT)
ὁράω from Hom., absolute "to see," "to look"
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved.)

NT:3708 (Vine's)
ὁράω to see," in various senses, is translated "to look," in the KJV of John 7:52
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

[Haven]

Anyone can give their personal definition of Bible words, specially to this case, the word "vision."
In Acts 26:19, it speaks about not just "vision" but "heavenly vision" in Greek "ouranios optasia."
Where Bible lexicons defined it as a sight, an appearance presented to one, Luke is not calling this a vision, Paul himself does not use the term for the Damascus incident, and etc.

This is simply not supported by the evidence. An “ouranios optasia” (heavenly vision) is not an ordinary occurrence of sight, but a spiritual experience, akin to a dream or “vision.” The word was used in both ways, as in English, but the context of Acts 26 makes it clear this was a spiritual event, not an ordinary physical sighting of a physical being.

Also, the author of Luke-Acts (of whom we do not know anything) is speaking on Paul’s life in a secondhand way, likely following his execution (and even he frames the appearances as spiritual, not physical). We have Paul’s own testimonies, however, and none of them mention the Damascus Road incident, only that Jesus “appeared” (ophthi) to him or that he “saw” (orau) Jesus, never in the context of an ordinary sight of a physical being or object.

Your own sources back this up as well. It’s worth noting that the TDNT and EDNT are from a fundamentalist publisher and are therefore biased toward the view of literal, physical resurrection, and even it acknowledges that these words were used by the author of Luke/Acts in non-physical, spiritual contexts (as in angelophanies). The EDNT admits that (as in English!), “orau” / “see” can and often does have figurative meanings (as in a spiritual vision, understanding, etc.), and that context is needed to disambiguate. And in Luke-Acts, the context of the post-resurrection appearances is clearly not that of an ordinary physical event, but something similar to an angelophany or a divine appearance in the OT or in other religious traditions.

[AchillesHeel]

Anyone can give their personal definition of Bible words, specially to this case, the word "vision."

Ok then, here's the definition from the BDAG:

BDAG 717 s.v. ὀπτασία: “an event of a transcendent character that impresses itself vividly on the mind, a vision, celestial sight, of that which a deity permits a human being to see, either of the deity personally or of someth. else usu. hidden fr. mortals” (cf. also 2 Cor 12:1; Lk 1:22; 24:23).

The context describes Paul seeing a "bright light" and hearing a voice while others with him do not see or hear the same thing he does. This is a supernatural revelation made known to Paul alone - compare against the vision of Daniel in Dan. 10:1-9. Others with Daniel did not see the vision. This is called "selective revelation" and it coheres with Paul's own description in Gal. 1:12-16 whereby he claims a "revelation."

In Acts 26:19, it speaks about not just "vision" but "heavenly vision" in Greek "ouranios optasia."

Yes, Jesus has ascended to heaven at this point which is why he now only "appears" through visions and revelations from heaven. He's no longer physically located on the earth and so now has to supernaturally appear to people. He is not to physically appear on earth again until the Second Coming.

As there are various meaning of "vision or heavenly vision" by the lexicon, he might be referring to the other definition as "sight, or an appearance presented to one."

And even from Jesus words in Acts 26:16, the word "appeared" "ὁράω" again is defined as "the basic meaning is see with the eyes."
The same definition rendered by Louw and Nida, TDNT and Vine's.

Again, the context of a normal appearance is ruled out because the others with Paul "saw no one" - Acts. 9:7. If this was a normal appearance where a person was objectively visible in the sky then the others would have seem him too.

I don't feel the need to engage with the rest of your quotes because you're just appealing to possibility and ignoring the context of Paul's vision. To deny the appearance to Paul was a vision is equivalent to saying Scripture is wrong in what it says. This is quite hilarious because it shows two things:

1. Paul's vision wasn't a vision! And so this interpretation requires one rewrite the accepted Christian Orthodox narrative! Have you told your pastor that Paul didn't have a vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road and that the Bible is wrong?

2. No one, not even Christians, takes claims of visions seriously. That's pretty awkward given the numerous accounts of visions in the Bible! Do you doubt those too?
https://www.openbible.info/topics/dreams_and_visions