Did Paul witness the resurrection ?

[DanieltheDragon]

In fact one comment i made earlier... The resurrection is something Paul witnessed, and this is why Paul converted to Christianity. So here is evidence that needs explaining. If the resurrection didn't happen then why did Paul convert?

This was posited in another thread that has gone in a variety of different direction, but I find this interesting enough to focus in and look at.

Questions for debate:

Did Paul witness the resurrection?

What constitutes being a witness to the resurrection?



Here is Paul's account as told by Luke:

Acts 9:1-9

9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lords disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?

5 Who are you, Lord? Saul asked.

I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied. 6 Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

[liamconnor]

In fact one comment i made earlier... The resurrection is something Paul witnessed, and this is why Paul converted to Christianity. So here is evidence that needs explaining. If the resurrection didn't happen then why did Paul convert?

This was posited in another thread that has gone in a variety of different direction, but I find this interesting enough to focus in and look at.

Questions for debate:

Did Paul witness the resurrection?

What constitutes being a witness to the resurrection?



Here is Paul's account as told by Luke:

Acts 9:1-9

9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lords disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?

5 Who are you, Lord? Saul asked.

I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied. 6 Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

A curiosity I ahve always had regarding this account. The text says that Paul's associates "heard the sound but did not see anyone" which suggests that Paul did see someone. But the above description is not explicit. Of course the "light" shining may have been an indirect way of referring to Jesus' glory as the exalted Lord. Any solutions? (note: this a literary problem and can be answered even by those who don't believe in the event. The question is: how did the author mean for us to understand Paul's encounter? The first part of the scene mentions only light and voice; but the second part suggests Paul saw a person, whereas his companions did not.

In any case, no one witnessed the resurrection if by that we mean "the act of resurrecting". What most mean is the state of having been resurrected.

[Haven]

A curiosity I ahve always had regarding this account. The text says that Paul's associates "heard the sound but did not see anyone"

The version in Acts 22 says they "saw the light" but heard nothing. Which is it?

The question is: how did the author mean for us to understand Paul's encounter? The first part of the scene mentions only light and voice; but the second part suggests Paul saw a person, whereas his companions did not.

It depends which version of the story you read.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 48 by Haven]

What is it called and under what subforum?

"Are natural explanations for the gospels implausible" on this subforum.

[tam]

Zzyzx[/url]"]
.
Hi Tam, thank you for the considered, civil reply. Though I differ with you on almost every point, there is nothing personal involved (and no emotional involvement / investment my part).

Most Christians I encounter here or in real life do not seem to know or to have given much thought to many of these things. Perhaps that makes discussion / debate a little unbalanced.

Yes, I remember. No problem.

How, exactly, do you know Elvis has not been resurrected?

I told you how. Because the resurrection has not occurred yet,

Zzyzx wrote: Aren't there Bible stories about several people being resurrected in addition to Jesus? It hasn't happened yet?

Yes, you are right. There are a few other examples of people being resurrected who had just died.

When I said the resurrection had not occurred yet, I was referring to the resurrection to life (eternal life - new body, no sin or death in it).

Have I changed my mind and think Elvis being resurrected? No. But if I saw him for myself, I'd ask him how he was running around alive (although he'd be 80 so perhaps not running- and yes, I had to look that up thanks to this discussion, lol)

as I have learned from Christ.

ZZyzx wrote: Do you claim to have direct communication from Jesus? Is that in the form of thoughts in your mind or do you hear voices? (No need to answer if it is too personal or embarrassing).

I am not embarrassed or ashamed, but thank you for your concern.

I do not hear 'voices'. I hear His voice, within me, as He said that His sheep would hear His voice. In direct words, in direct questions, even a back and forth on occasion.

Fear (and anger) are very loud, mind you, and make it hard to hear Him. Because He is quiet. You have to listen. If you don't want to hear Him, for the most part, you will not. (there is one exception to this that I know of - and that is with Saul/Paul). Not hearing Him does not mean that He is not speaking; it just means you are not hearing Him, or perhaps you are dismissing his voice as background noise or some such thing.

(you = general 'you' in the above)

He once read to me something that He is written in the gospels to have said (His prayer at the end of John). I will tell you that you really get to know someone hearing THEIR voice, their emotion, their tone, their love... rather than asserting our own inflection/emotion/tone onto someone else's words.

(I think that works the same here online when we think someone is being sarcastic or angry, but if we heard their voice rather than just read their words, we might get an entirely different understanding)

I have no reason TO believe that Elvis has been resurrected.

Zzyzx wrote: The same can be said about Jesus. There are only unverifiable stories that he came back to life. Why believe those stories?

Those stories are verified for me, and for others who hear Him even now. Because the same thing has happened with me (and others).

(Mind you, I did not start out even realizing that Christ could speak or that He was truly alive (I did not truly know what that meant). I just loved Him, heard the truth in what He taught, and followed Him. This led to knowing Him, and recognizing His voice.)

That being said, if I saw Elvis myself (and not an impersonator, and Elvis didn't just fake his own death), and/or Christ told me that He had resurrected Elvis early for some reason, well, then I would then have to accept that Elvis is running around, and I was incorrect.

ZZyzx wrote: I would say the same about Jesus, but don't know how to tell if it was an impersonator. For that matter, how did the ancients know that who they claimed to see after Jesus died was not an impersonator or imposter? Evidently some were said to not recognize him.

Those ones who did not recognize Him by appearance, recognized Him by His voice, and by the truth He spoke.

(at least once their eyes were opened, which they were opened, according to what is written, after they broke bread, ate and drank with Christ - then they remember that the 'fire' was burning within them when Christ spoke to them on their walk, explaining the scriptures)

How do you know what Elvis did nor did not claim? Have you researched the literature about Elvis to determine that he did not say such a thing? Or is this just guesswork and personal opinion?

As far as I know he did not make that claim. I would think that if he did make that claim, it would be common knowledge, because Elvis was huge. But admittedly, yes, this was guesswork on my behalf.

Zzyzx wrote: Guesswork gets us in trouble in debate.

True. I am more familiar with discussion (even heated discussion) than debate, so I am sure that I am making some mistakes, and appreciate the patience. I am sure I will learn as I go.

Your argument seems to hang on whether Jesus and Elvis predicted that they would be resurrected.

No, my argument can't hang off that... making a claim does not make the claim true - it was just a reason to perhaps pay more attention when a person make a claim and people start saying that they witnessed that claim being true. Even that does not MAKE it true... just might be cause to pay a little more attention, and investigate for oneself. Perhaps see/hear the truth of it for oneself.

How, exactly, does one investigate for themselves if the claim of the resurrection of Jesus is true?

Can you cite quotations of words attributed to Jesus making that claim " and show that they are not later additions / insertions?

Nothing was written down (that I am aware of) until after He died and was resurrected, so no, I cannot.

Zzyzx wrote: You seem to think that Jesus did predict that he would rise from the dead " but can't verify that. Right?

I meant that I cannot verify that it was written before His death and resurrection. I can show you where He is written to have said that.

(John 10:17-18 is perhaps the clearest - though there are other words that He said that were not understood until after the fact)

It is not difficult for writers to "predict" something after it has happened -- and none of the gospels were written until decades or generations after Jesus is said to have died.

Yes. But that is also conjecture. It is not conjecture that the works weren't written until later... but it is conjecture that the 'predictions' were not first spoken, and then later written down with everything else.

Zzyzx wrote: Has someone made the claim that "the 'predictions' were not first spoken, and then later written down . . "?

No. I was just following the thought through.

Zzyzx wrote:

I would not contest that many of the stories about Jesus were "first spoken and then later written down". That identifies them as folklore, legend, hearsay, and/or rumor, etc over a period of decades or generations (possibly longer).

A couple other possibilities:

Those who did witness the events could have been interviewed and their witness written down by someone else. (this is what Luke said he did, and he said others were doing similar)

Some of those who witnessed Christ could also have written down their accounts much later as well. Such as the author of the book of John said.

Christian scholars and theologians disagree about when the gospels were written or by whom or where gospel writers got the stories. Therefore, the truth and accuracy of reports of any events or conversations is far from certain. Yet in-the-pew-Christians seem convinced (and often claim in debate) to KNOW all those things. How is it that lay people know more than scholars and theologians who spend a lifetime studying the issues?

Well... a lay person who knows Christ could know more than a scholar who does not know Christ. Because the lay person is learning from the only One living who DOES know what happened, because that One was there.

Whether another person can believe the One who claims to be learning from Christ is another matter. But if that first person can learn from Christ, then why would you (general you) not skip the middle man (the person with the claim to know) and just go directly to Christ also?

Zzyzx wrote: Most of us are aware that when stories are told and retold from person-to-person it is not uncommon for them to change dramatically with repeated retellings. If great-grandmother said something and grandmother told mother who told us can we be sure that we have the exact words and meaning long after she is dead?

[/quote]

Yes, this can happen. Multiple witnesses with the same story could lend some credence to the story, but again, the source would be best, if possible.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 54 by tam]

Tam, thanks for a nice reply. I will comment on only a few things.

Those who did witness the events could have been interviewed and their witness written down by someone else.

As soon as someone tells someone else that constitutes hearsay -- which is considered an unreliable form of testimony (and disallowed in court for that reason).

(this is what Luke said he did, and he said others were doing similar)

The gospel of Luke was written by a person who cannot be identified by Christian scholars and theologians. When it was written is unknown also, but is thought to be not less than thirty years after Jesus is said to have died, and some Christian scholars and theologians place the time later than that.

There is no assurance (or even claim) that information came from actual witnesses. Since decades had passed it seems more likely that the stories were told and retold many times before being recorded. That certainly allows plenty of time for inaccuracies, embellishments, additions, subtractions, modifications to creep in (inadvertently or deliberately).

Have you (generic term) participated in passing a "secret" from person to person around a room " and observed how drastically the original is changed with retelling?

I do not hear 'voices'. I hear His voice, within me, as He said that His sheep would hear His voice. In direct words, in direct questions, even a back and forth on occasion.

Interesting. Many people claim to hear the voice of their favorite gods. Since such conversations seem to happen in their head, I wonder how they rule out the possibility that they are talking to themselves mentally.

Well... a lay person who knows Christ could know more than a scholar who does not know Christ. Because the lay person is learning from the only One living who DOES know what happened, because that One was there.

Yes, perhaps Christian scholars, theologians, monks, friars, who dedicate their lives to religious matters may NOT "know Christ" while lay-people DO (or claim to). Somehow that doesn't seem to add up very well.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 55 by Zzyzx]

Have you (generic term) participated in passing a "secret" from person to person around a room " and observed how drastically the original is changed with retelling?

This is Ehrman's trickery; I remember playing that game. I remember being the one who intentionally changed it to be something ridiculous. Oral tradition doesn't work that way and Bart knows it.

Let's play another game.

You have some 50 people in a room who have been given a message, not in secret. They go into another room and tell other people the message and have them repeat it back to them until the message is verbatim. Perhaps they even write it down for them. They send those people into other rooms with members of the original to ensure faithful transmission.

Yes, at some point the original fifty are no longer allowed to participate. But the ones whose heads they hammered that original message now play their role, and are very active in how that message is transmitted.

Eventually we get to the last room where the message is written down in a final form and sent back to the message's origin for assessment.

(Oh, and let's add one more detail that Ehrman forgot: the players aren't bratty 13 year olds at summer camp; they believe the message is the greatest message in the world and should be faithfully conveyed).

Now, what do you think the result will be?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 56 by liamconnor]

Hi IC, excellent response. I'm impressed " and have to give considerable thought to a reply.

Let's play another game.

You have some 50 people in a room who have been given a message, not in secret.

Do the fifty have emotional involvement or investment in the message? If so, is their personal agenda the same or very similar?

They go into another room and tell other people the message and have them repeat it back to them until the message is verbatim.

Does each of the original fifty relay the message exactly, identically or are there variations in their recall and presentation due to human frailties? Are all equally committed to the task and the message?

Perhaps they even write it down for them. They send those people into other rooms with members of the original to ensure faithful transmission.

Yes, at some point the original fifty are no longer allowed to participate. But the ones whose heads they hammered that original message now play their role, and are very active in how that message is transmitted.

Can it be assumed that the "heads hammered" crew all have the same memory of the story?

Eventually we get to the last room where the message is written down in a final form and sent back to the message's origin for assessment.

(Oh, and let's add one more detail that Ehrman forgot: the players aren't bratty 13 year olds at summer camp; they believe the message is the greatest message in the world and should be faithfully conveyed).

Can we be assured that all involved at each stage of transmission will believe that the message is that important and that none will make any additions, deletions, modifications, exaggerations (perhaps to enhance the story?)?

Now, what do you think the result will be?

I would expect that some of the final messages would be quite accurate, some reasonably accurate, some not so accurate, and some quite inaccurate (deliberately or inadvertently).

If I hand all the final messages to you can you pick out the most accurate one without knowing the original message?

Let's complicate it a little by having each of the "final messages" copied by hand, and those copies handed to others to be copied by hand " repeated numerous times.

Let's complicate it a little more and have the message translated from one language into another and then into another along the way.

Then can you confidently identify the exact wording of the original message?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 57 by Zzyzx]

Hi Z.

It is late here and I will have to take up your reply later this weekend.

But I ask one question necessary for my reply:

I would expect that some of the final messages would be quite accurate, some reasonably accurate, some not so accurate, and some quite inaccurate (deliberately or inadvertently).

Would you expect the parts that made it all the way through to be the most significant, or the more prosaic details. For instance, observe the following original message:

Fort knox was successfully robbed on Friday july 4th by 5 criminials taking anywhere from 3 to 6.5 million dollars in gold, bonds, and priceless jewlery (okay, fort knox probably doesn't have jewelry; leave it alone): police believe two of the culprits to be hispanic, 2 white and one of unknown ethnicity. They used military grade explosives to gain access to the vaults. To escape they took 5 victims hostage. One hostage reports that one of the culprits said to her, "keep your head down, don't say a word, and you will get through this." Later she was let out of the van and told "walk straight, don't take off your folds until your feet touch water."

Which of the following would you expect to survive "rumors" "in the streets" with very few controls that govern oral transmission in non-literate societies?

1) that Fort knox was robbed
2) that the number of the criminals were 5
3) the supposed ethnicity of the robbers.
4) that they used explosives
5)that they used Military grade explosives
6) the date of the robbery (perhaps someone confused the 4th with 5 culprits)
7) the total amount of value of taken goods
8) the specific goods taken
9) the exact verbatim words spoken to the hostage
10) the general words spoken to the hostage.

You don't have to give a detailed reply to each one. If anything survived, which would it be?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 57 by Zzyzx]
That's daunting all right there, sure.
Good thing the real situation is that seven eyewitnesses to Jesus wrote down their versions of what happened.
John Mark stared the ball rolling with his diary notations that most closely resemble what Howard M. Teeple identified as the "S" stratum in John 18 to 20.
But he wasn't the first to start writing, it's just that this Passion Narrative is the source of almost all of the common elements in all four gospels. Earlier Matthew had written the parts of the Double Tradition (Q to you) and Triple Tradition that show mild degrees of exactitude one to another because he wrote in Aramaic and differing translations arose.
Also before the death of Jesus the Johannine Discourses had been written by Nicodemus, starting with the introduction to him (Nicodemus) at John 3.
I would not claim that any of the other four eyewitnesses wrote while Jesus was still alive or very shortly thereafter.
The other main source in John is known to scholars as the Signs Source, telling about seven miracles of Jesus. Andrew is so involved that I long ago spotted him as the author. Eventually the Apostle John added his own eyewitness testimony (John 13 & 21, basically) when he edited the Gospel of John--pretty much as told by the Muratorian Canon of about 170 A. D.
It is well known that there are significant portions of Matthew and Luke that are extremely alike. This portion of what is commonly called "Q" I would call Q2 or Aramaic Q. It probably came from Simon Peter getting together with John Mark in 44 A. D. (Acts 12:12) This approximates what scholars used to call Ur-Marcus--a more proper name would be Proto-Mark. Oh, don't get this wrong like most scholars do--this "Q2" also includes Triple Tradition (all the Synoptics, Matthew , Mark, and Luke). So does Q1. Yeah, some re-thinking is necessary. The usual platitudes don't work. Dennis R. MacDonald has proven that "Q" also appears in Mark--as any thinking scholar should have realized ever since the 1945 Nag Hammadi discovery of the Gospel of Thomas.
The seventh eyewitness has been hiding in plain sight. We find in Luke 24 the long story of the Walk to Emmaus. Cleopas is named. He was old, so someone younger hurried back to the disciples in Jerusalem and announced, "Jesus has appeared to me!" By the time the final author Luke worked with it he wrote, "The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." (Lk. 24:34, NIV) Yes of course, Cleopas's fleet-of-foot son Simon. Who else of that name is recorded in the gospels as having specially seen Jesus?
Every indication is that this Simon son of Cleopas wrote the proto-Luke that preceded Luke's completed version. Closely related to Jesus he would have been one who could have known the Infancy Narrative we find in Luke 1 and 2. No, of course he could not have been an eyewitness to that, but as one of the 72 in Luke he would have been in a good position to edit the Perean Ministry (Lk. 9:57 to 19:27, adding in significant portions of his own experience). He may also be the "Simon" of Lk. 7:26=-50, as that's about the new personal touches start to appear.
Seven eyewitnesses? I admit that at best Bible scholarship of a century ago had Peter as the eyewitness behind Mark, Matthew as the writer of Q, along with a dubious proposition that John had written the entirety of the Gospel of John. No, just a final portion. More recent good scholarship has uncovered the Signs Source. Lk. 1:2 tells us that several eyewitness accounts had already been written, but apparently Luke had only heard of some that he had no access to, this Signs Source being one and the Johannine Discourses another. Yeah, I know Fundamentalists and Liberals agree the Discourses came late, but who are you going to believe, them or me?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 59 by Korah]

Here we go again with the oft repeated undefended claim that there were seven written eyewitness accounts.

1) Which of the accounts actually discusses the "resurrection" itself (the topic of this thread)? Is there ANY account of an actual eyewitness to the resurrection event itself? The "empty tomb" story is NOT an eyewitness account of any "resurrection."

2) When were the supposed "eyewitness reports" written? How long after the said events and conversations?

3) By whom? Who, exactly, were the writers of the accounts? If their claims are to be rationally considered it is important to know who they were and to show that they were in a position to actually witness the events and conversations.

4) Do writers of the accounts clearly claim to have personally witnessed the events and conversations they record?

5) How can it be determined that the writer was an actual eyewitness? Anyone can claim to have witnessed what they did not -- or were not in a position to witness.

6) Can the claimed accounts be shown to be free of later manipulation by copyists, transcribers, editors, revisionists?