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]

Yes, even BDAG supports other Bible lexicons by defining "vision" as "which a deity permits a human being to see either of the deity personally."
And "personally" in Greek "σάρξ sarx' defined by Bible lexicon as "flesh, the body, bodily, bodily condition and etc.
Jesus ascension was seen by His disciples personally, bodily, in bodily condition etc.

 

Something that a "deity permits a human to see" assumes the deity exists which is question begging. The point is this is a supernatural vision and in order for it to be a veridical supernatural vision, Christianity must be true in the first place! Obviously, Jesus cannot supernaturally appear in a vision unless some form of Christianity is true, right? So this ends up just begging the question and is no different than arguing over whether or not Hindus see veridical visions of their gods just because they claim to. I take it that you don't believe they do, just like I don't believe Jews and Christians have veridical visions.

We are inquiring about the terms Paul uses. Paul does not corroborate seeing a separate and distinct 40 day later ascension after others touched Jesus' flesh and bone body. That stuff all developed later. In fact, Paul seems to reject the Resurrection of the flesh in 1 Cor 15:50 and says it's "sinful" per Romans 6-8. The Lukan polemic in Lk. 24:39 may be a direct response to the Pauline terminology in 1 Cor 15:40-45.

[Capbook]

Yes, even BDAG supports other Bible lexicons by defining "vision" as "which a deity permits a human being to see either of the deity personally."
And "personally" in Greek "σάρξ sarx' defined by Bible lexicon as .
Jesus ascension was seen by His disciples personally, bodily, in bodily condition etc.

 

Something that a "deity permits a human to see" assumes the deity exists which is question begging. The point is this is a supernatural vision and in order for it to be a veridical supernatural vision, Christianity must be true in the first place! Obviously, Jesus cannot supernaturally appear in a vision unless some form of Christianity is true, right? So this ends up just begging the question and is no different than arguing over whether or not Hindus see veridical visions of their gods just because they claim to. I take it that you don't believe they do, just like I don't believe Jews and Christians have veridical visions.

We are inquiring about the terms Paul uses. Paul does not corroborate seeing a separate and distinct 40 day later ascension after others touched Jesus' flesh and bone body. That stuff all developed later. In fact, Paul seems to reject the Resurrection of the flesh in 1 Cor 15:50 and says it's "sinful" per Romans 6-8. The Lukan polemic in Lk. 24:39 may be a direct response to the Pauline terminology in 1 Cor 15:40-45.

My point to BDAG definition of "vision" of Acts 26:19 as "deity permits a human being to see either of the deity personally," the word "personally" which I pointed out to you as defined by Bible lexicon as "flesh, the body, bodily, bodily condition and etc. Whom Jesus acknowledged what He is after His resurrection, flesh and bones.(Luke 24:39)
The deity/Jesus permits Paul to see either the deity/Jesus personally per BDAG definition, the glorified Jesus.(Phil 3:21)

As for Paul's rejection of the flesh and blood in 1Cor 15:50, refers to the "vile body" properly mean “the body of humiliation;” that is, our humble body. It refers to the body as it is in its present state, as subject to infirmities, disease, and death. It is different far from what it was when man was created, and from what it will be in the future world. Paul says that it is one of the objects of the Christian hope and expectation, that this body, so subject to infirmities and sicknesses, will be changed.(Phil 3:21)
The changed from perishable body to imperishable just in a matter of twinkling of an eye.

Php 3:21  Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. 

[AchillesHeel]

My point to BDAG definition of "vision" of Acts 26:19 as "deity permits a human being to see either of the deity personally," the word "personally" which I pointed out to you as defined by Bible lexicon as "flesh, the body, bodily, bodily condition and etc.

Why are you taking the English word "personally" from the BDAG and translating it to the Greek word for "flesh"? The BDAG doesn't say that. It just means to "see a deity" which is a supernatural experience normally hidden from mortals per the definition. This is still a "vision" since visions are defined as experiences outside the normal mode of sense perception. You don't get to just conflate having a visionary experience with a normal mundane experience.

Whom Jesus acknowledged what He is after His resurrection, flesh and bones.(Luke 24:39)
The deity/Jesus permits Paul to see either the deity/Jesus personally per BDAG definition, the glorified Jesus.(Phil 3:21)

It's the glorified Jesus from heaven....in a vision which other people present do not see or hear properly.

As for Paul's rejection of the flesh and blood in 1Cor 15:50, refers to the "vile body" properly mean “the body of humiliation;” that is, our humble body. It refers to the body as it is in its present state, as subject to infirmities, disease, and death. It is different far from what it was when man was created, and from what it will be in the future world. Paul says that it is one of the objects of the Christian hope and expectation, that this body, so subject to infirmities and sicknesses, will be changed.(Phil 3:21)
The changed from perishable body to imperishable just in a matter of twinkling of an eye.

Php 3:21  Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. 

The context of 1 Cor 15 after v. 35 is "what type of body" the resurrected will have. This culminates in Paul saying the Resurrection will not involve flesh and blood which contradicts Luke's depiction. The ones who are "changed" are those who are still alive whereas the ones who are dead are "raised imperishable". Phil. 3:21 is referring to the former. Paul makes this distinction clear at the end of 1 Cor 15. Paul never says corpses from the ground will rise from the dead. That's a possible interpretation but not a necessary one. There are different ways to interpret Paul's "spiritual body" terminology.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

It does, however, change how you interpret the ambiguity about whether election and predestination are individual or corporate.

Not really, God still chose us. If God did not choose you, you would not be part of the us.

How does that shifted goalpost change anything? Your criterion was "rich and powerful" to "poor and hunted."

Osama bin Laden was not poor when he died, and he was still quite powerful. So try again.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Osadam+ ... e&ie=UTF-8


So why would Paul change religions and go from rich and powerful to poor and hunted? If it helps for me to outline the context.

You do not have any answers for Paul.

1. Why was Paul trying to destroy Christianity and then stopped trying to destroy it?
2. Why would Paul become a Christian even though Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead? Even though Paul himself says that he is a Pharisee. Philippians 3:5 Whether spiritual or bodily, it does not matter for this argument.
3. Why would the Pharisees have a problem with the Christianity? Especially a spiritual resurrection?
4. How does your spiritual resurrection differ from what the Pharisees already believed?

There is more to this argument than just word salads. Your word salad has to be able to explain the facts that we do know, and a spiritual resurrection does not explain Paul's dramatic change. Especially since the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection. "Rabbinic Jewish tradition is that the dead will be bodily resurrected where they are buried."

[Difflugia]

It does, however, change how you interpret the ambiguity about whether election and predestination are individual or corporate.

Not really,

Corporate election vs. unconditional election.

God still chose us. If God did not choose you, you would not be part of the us.

That's explicitly the Calvisist view. The Arminian interpretation is that those verses refer to God choosing the Christian Church as a corporate entity, but it's still up to an individual's free will to decide whether or not to "be part of the us."

How does that shifted goalpost change anything? Your criterion was "rich and powerful" to "poor and hunted."

Osama bin Laden was not poor when he died, and he was still quite powerful. So try again.

In the context of your argument, what's the difference? If you're predicating it somehow on giving up wealth, the only indication that Paul was wealthy beforehand is the almost-certainly ahistorical speech in Acts about buying his citizenship. The closest thing to poverty is his claim that he worked for a living while travelling as an apostle. As far as being hunted, Paul was arrested by the Romans and bin Laden was assassinated by the US military. Your argument either applies to bin Laden or it doesn't apply to Paul. pick your poison.

So why would Paul change religions and go from rich and powerful to poor and hunted? If it helps for me to outline the context.

You do not have any answers for Paul.

1. Why was Paul trying to destroy Christianity and then stopped trying to destroy it?
2. Why would Paul become a Christian even though Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead? Even though Paul himself says that he is a Pharisee. Philippians 3:5 Whether spiritual or bodily, it does not matter for this argument.
3. Why would the Pharisees have a problem with the Christianity? Especially a spiritual resurrection?
4. How does your spiritual resurrection differ from what the Pharisees already believed?

If you think any of this has meaning, you'll have to do better than rhetorical questions. There are multiple false premises behind your questions and you never explain how any of these are affected by belief in a resurrection, let alone the historical reality.

There is more to this argument than just word salads.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Your word salad has to be able to explain the facts that we do know, and a spiritual resurrection does not explain Paul's dramatic change.

No? Even if we accept any of the premises behind your argument, it still boils down to Paul's subjective experience. You're apparently claiming that Paul experiencing a physically resurrected Jesus would somehow necessarily and self-evidently be different than experiencing a spiritually resurrected Jesus. Show your work.

Especially since the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection. "Rabbinic Jewish tradition is that the dead will be bodily resurrected where they are buried."

What is your argument here? That Paul wouldn't believe a personal vision of Jesus? Not to put too fine a point on it, but the modern Christian religious experience is necessarily based on far less than what Paul had, even if everything Paul had was imaginary. There are modern zealots with only subjective experiences, but your argument is that Paul wouldn't have been one. Personal incredulity, special pleading, and a nice vinaigrette will only get you so far, though.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #75]

You do not have any answers for Paul.

1. Why was Paul trying to destroy Christianity and then stopped trying to destroy it?
2. Why would Paul become a Christian even though Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead? Even though Paul himself says that he is a Pharisee. Philippians 3:5 Whether spiritual or bodily, it does not matter for this argument.
3. Why would the Pharisees have a problem with the Christianity? Especially a spiritual resurrection?
4. How does your spiritual resurrection differ from what the Pharisees already believed?

If you think any of this has meaning, you'll have to do better than rhetorical questions. There are multiple false premises behind your questions and you never explain how any of these are affected by belief in a resurrection, let alone the historical reality.

You have not established any false premises. This is what Paul claims in his writings. Just start with the first one. Why would Paul go from trying to destroy Christianity to not just stopping from trying to destroy it but to become a Christian himself? Especially with the gospel message of Christianity, which is that you must believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

[Haven]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #76]

Why would Paul go from trying to destroy Christianity to not just stopping from trying to destroy it but to become a Christian himself? Especially with the gospel message of Christianity, which is that you must believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

Assuming this actually happened as written: a change in belief isn’t evidence for that belief. There are plenty of Christians who have converted to Islam, many inspired by religious experiences - visions, dreams or other hallucinations. Is this evidence for Islam?

Also, we don’t know that Paul was a persecutor, we just have to take him (and the author of Acts) at his word. It’s well known that converts often exaggerate their lifestyle or “anti-religious” beliefs beforehand. Many online apologists declare themselves to be former atheists, but they can’t even define what atheism is.

[Haven]

Your word salad has to be able to explain the facts that we do know, and a spiritual resurrection does not explain Paul's dramatic change.

Why would belief in a spiritual resurrection not explain a change in belief, especially for a man who was already religious? Besides, Paul never stated he believed the resurrection to be physical, and as others have pointed out the original Greek strongly suggests the contrary (he describes it as a heavenly vision, uses passive forms that suggest non-physical sight, etc.).

Also, there’s the issue that a physical resurrection is literally impossible due to the interaction problem. If God is non-physical and has no physical properties, how can he raise someone physically? If Heaven is a non-physical place (with no physical properties), how can a physical body go there?

It would be better for your position to affirm a spiritual resurrection, otherwise Christianity moves from unfalsifiable (at best) to logically incoherent and demonstrably false.

[historia]

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

So, there is, I think, a bit of a terminological -- if not also a methodological -- issue worth unpacking here.

The way I think of historical analysis -- and this is often how it is described in historiographical works as well -- is that any document or artifact that touches upon a particular historical event is "evidence." In that way historical "evidence" is like "data" or "information."

The goal of the historian is to determine which hypothesis best explains all (emphasis on all) the available evidence/data. Or, to put that another way: how did the evidence/data come to be the way that it is?

You seem to be using "evidence" in an informal way here to mean something closer to "proof." I don't think anyone is saying that Paul's statements, in and of themselves, are "proof" Jesus was resurrected. But, surely, they are historical "evidence" in the sense I just described.

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.

Had Paul used a different term would that "establish" the Resurrection?

In the way you've constructed your argument, it seems like your analysis of Paul hinges almost entirely on this one word -- a word that, as has been noted above, can, in fact, refer to seeing in the normal sense. For posterity, if nothing else, here's an assesment from N.T. Wright in Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), pg. 323, to balance out the quotes in the OP:

The use of ophthe is in fact quite varied, as a glance at the LXX concordance will show. The word occurs 85 times, of which a little over half refer either to YHWH, or YHWH’s glory, or an angel of YHWH, appearing to people.

The remaining 39 occurrences refer to people appearing before YHWH in the sense of presenting themselves in the Temple, or to objects being seen by people in a straightforward, non-visionary sense; and to people 'appearing', in a non-visionary and unsurprising way, before someone else.

At any rate, before we jump to any conclusions here about the usefulness of entire sources based on a single word, it seems to me we should, at the very least, add one more word to our analysis: "resurrection." Or rather, a group of words in Greek, like anastasis and egegertai, that in this particular context meant resurrection.

As I think all of us would have to agree, from the very earliest sources -- including those that Paul himself is passing along to us in his writings -- and continuing throughout the early Christian literature, Christians are unanimous in telling us they believed Jesus had been resurrected, which meant a return to physical life.

If Paul and the apostles had merely had visions of Jesus after his death, it's not immediately clear why they would have described that as Jesus being resurrected. It seems more likely to me that they would have described that as Jesus' spirit appearing to them or his soul appearing to them from heaven, or similar language. Why are they calling that "resurrection"?

[AchillesHeel]

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

So, there is, I think, a bit of a terminological -- if not also a methodological -- issue worth unpacking here.

The way I think of historical analysis -- and this is often how it is described in historiographical works as well -- is that any document or artifact that touches upon a particular historical event is "evidence." In that way historical "evidence" is like "data" or "information."

The goal of the historian is to determine which hypothesis best explains all (emphasis on all) the available evidence/data. Or, to put that another way: how did the evidence/data come to be the way that it is?

You seem to be using "evidence" in an informal way here to mean something closer to "proof." I don't think anyone is saying that Paul's statements, in and of themselves, are "proof" Jesus was resurrected. But, surely, they are historical "evidence" in the sense I just described.

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.

Had Paul used a different term would that "establish" the Resurrection?

In the way you've constructed your argument, it seems like your analysis of Paul hinges almost entirely on this one word -- a word that, as has been noted above, can, in fact, refer to seeing in the normal sense. For posterity, if nothing else, here's an assesment from N.T. Wright in Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), pg. 323, to balance out the quotes in the OP:

The use of ophthe is in fact quite varied, as a glance at the LXX concordance will show. The word occurs 85 times, of which a little over half refer either to YHWH, or YHWH’s glory, or an angel of YHWH, appearing to people.

The remaining 39 occurrences refer to people appearing before YHWH in the sense of presenting themselves in the Temple, or to objects being seen by people in a straightforward, non-visionary sense; and to people 'appearing', in a non-visionary and unsurprising way, before someone else.

At any rate, before we jump to any conclusions here about the usefulness of entire sources based on a single word, it seems to me we should, at the very least, add one more word to our analysis: "resurrection." Or rather, a group of words in Greek, like anastasis and egegertai, that in this particular context meant resurrection.

As I think all of us would have to agree, from the very earliest sources -- including those that Paul himself is passing along to us in his writings -- and continuing throughout the early Christian literature, Christians are unanimous in telling us they believed Jesus had been resurrected, which meant a return to physical life.

If Paul and the apostles had merely had visions of Jesus after his death, it's not immediately clear why they would have described that as Jesus being resurrected. It seems more likely to me that they would have described that as Jesus' spirit appearing to them or his soul appearing to them from heaven, or similar language. Why are they calling that "resurrection"?

It's not just the word. It's the word plus the fact that the appearance to Paul was a vision. He places his vision in the list of "appearances" while using the same word and making no distinction. That's an inference they were all understood as the same type of appearances.

The NT Wright quote is misleading not entirely accurate. What about all the quotes from scholars I gave in my original post? What about post #2 where I document every instance in the New Testament and show 95+% of cases refer to visions or supernatural appearances? Wright completely ignores the New Testament usage which is dishonest because he should know better and the only reason to leave it out is because he realized it doesn't support his beliefs.

As for why they would believe in a resurrection, see here where I give an explanation. viewtopic.php?p=1175097#p1175097

A lot of people conveniently forget Jesus and his followers believed they were living in the end times which is exactly when Jews believed the Resurrection was supposed to take place. Combine that with the fact Jesus predicted his own resurrection, according to the gospels, and the fact that there were already rumors of John the Baptist rising from the dead (Mark 6:14-16) or a "prophet" rising (Luke 9:8) and you have all the ingredients you need to explain the origin of the belief after Jesus' death.