Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Watch how experiencing the Risen Jesus gets more "physical" in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows:
Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη in 1 Cor 15:5-8. The word ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) is the aorist passive form of the word ὁράω (horao). Notice how this word doesn't necessarily mean physical eyesight.
horáō – properly, see, *often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).*
Paul says Jesus was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.
Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.
John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels.
That's a good post but I wonder whether it isn't more appropriate to R& S? You are preaching to the choir Here. This is more a challenge to the Bible -suckers
That's a good post but I wonder whether it isn't more appropriate to R& S? You are preaching to the choir Here. This is more a challenge to the Bible -suckers
Tried posting it in Christianity but they locked it because it debunks their belief system I guess. I posted it here for you guys to use against apologists. I've tried debating it with about every online Christian I can find. Never seen a good rebuttal to this.
That's a good post but I wonder whether it isn't more appropriate to R& S? You are preaching to the choir Here. This is more a challenge to the Bible -suckers
More or less my reaction as well. When someone is advancing a claim which requires the suspension of natural law in order to be true, my feeling is that the burden of proof rests entirely with the one presenting the claim.
Dissecting the claim to disprove its validity can be fun, but I view such doings as sport rather than necessity.
Tried posting it in Christianity but they locked it because it debunks their belief system I guess. I posted it here for you guys to use against apologists. I've tried debating it with about every online Christian I can find. Never seen a good rebuttal to this.
Yes. I don't think it is right for Christianity. It isn't WRONG here but I would have thought R and S would more debate -friendly. In fact a related thread has been opened there and they could be combined. Up to you.
Posting this same subject now to THREE forums? Jeez dude, you're totally obsessed and compulsive I bet you think about this 24/7, and have daily nightmares about it. You might be overdue for therapy.
Posting this same subject now to THREE forums? Jeez dude, you're totally obsessed and compulsive I bet you think about this 24/7, and have daily nightmares about it. You might be overdue for therapy.
No. He simply posted it twice in the wrong place. Now it's in the right place.
In fact i agree with the caller - Eddy, and it's the argument I use against the Mythicist position.
Paul said he met the disciples, and you don't get disciples of a person that wasn't there to follow.
Now the disagreement was actually about whether Jesus is as provable as the round earth. Well no. But that isn't the argument. It is in historical terms (and the argument that we accept a lot of ancient accounts of people, in slender and sometimes questionable sources is a valid one) whether the Jesus claim is credible.
I believe Paul's letters are by him (the earlier ones, anyway) as if they were invented, he wouldn't be shown as constantly battling about problems. The problem wouldn't be there. Just as if the Jesus story was just made up, they would have been a Judean, not a Galilean. he would have been stoned by Jews, not crucified by Romans.
I don't altogether buy the explanation that James, the Lord's brother, might not have been his actual brother. Cephus never gets called a brother. His position as effective head of the disciples (and I'm pointedly avoiding citing the disciple list s as evidence) suggests that there was a reason he got that post. He might have been the best man for the job, but then, wouldn't Paul have cited (as a bit of name -dropping) that James was the head of the apostles in Jerusalem rather than noting that he was the Lord's brother? I think that is significant. So I touched on three reasons why Jesus has to be a real person.
And a fourth: Tacitus, which I always though was the best extra - Biblical evidence for Jesus and, after discussion with Pneuma, I accepted where he showed that Pilate was both Prefect and procurator, but was a prefect at the time, because his military duties were more important than the Fiscal ones, but I ended up more thinking that Tacitus was reporting what he'd heard about Christians, rather than what he'd read in the records.
But the Mythicist aspect of what was imposed on the actual historical Jesus (Matt changes his ground - or seems to -on that) is one I go with, and the evolution or development of the Gospel Jesus can be demonstrated.
Paul said he met the disciples, and you don't get disciples of a person that wasn't there to follow.
.
The Knights of the Round Table? The Merry Men?
Paul, for all his intercourse with the disciples, did not pick up any biographical information about Jesus which he elected to pass on to his readers. Paul writes about what Jesus wants us to do and what the rules are now supposed to be, but was mysteriously silent on the life of the person behind the message. In terms of proof of a historical Jesus, Paul isn't very much help.
Please do not take the above as indicative of me subscribing to a no historical Jesus theory. I of course am in no position to assert something I do not know. I've found informed speculation about what Jesus was really doing with his ministry to be a fun sport, and you need to assume a real dude for that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I wonder whether it isn't more appropriate to R& S? You are preaching to the choir Here. This is more a challenge to the Bible -suckers 
I bet you think about this 24/7, and have daily nightmares about it. You might be overdue for therapy.
