Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[gnostic]

I'm copying this from a Reddit post.

In the earliest witness to the Resurrection, 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul basically says "Jesus appeared to them and he appeared to me, too." No distinction in nature is provided between the appearances. Paul's is just last in sequence. The verb Paul uses for each instance of "appeared" is ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) which could be used to denote "spiritually seeing/experiencing" something as opposed to an actual physical sighting with the eyes.

Interestingly enough, Paul says his experience was an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16, implies that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions and revelations" in 2 Cor 12:1, was "known through revelation and the scriptures" in Rom. 16:25-26, and his "mystery was made known through revelation" in Eph. 3:3-5. Paul's notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. "Visions" and "revelations" are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. The later author of Acts calls Paul's experience a "vision from heaven" involving a bright light and a voice - Acts 26:19.

So since the appearance to Paul was some sort of a "spiritual vision" and he places it in the same list as the other "appearances" without a distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8, it can be inferred that the others had spiritual visions as well. This is noteworthy because Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source so any attempt to read in the later physical appearances from the gospels into Paul's letters is necessarily anachronistic and thus a fallacious way to reconstruct history.

Now let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows:

Paul c. 50 CE - says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations." He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't (more below).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

I would argue that the tendency of depicting Jesus more "physical" can be explained by Greco-Roman influence. After Paul's mystical/spiritual Jewish Jesus made it's way to the gentiles, they took the story and ran with it, turning him into an immortal Greco-Roman god over time. Pages 141-181 give a good overview https://books.google.com/books?id=tQUDA ... &q&f=false

Again, it's important to stress that Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source so he is more likely to accurately preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. Paul nowhere corroborates an empty tomb or anything like what Luke and John depict in their resurrection reports. This silence is striking since Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that there was "a resurrection of the dead" - 1 Cor 15:12-13 and explain "with what type of body do they come?" - v. 35. It's significant that he doesn't mention the empty tomb, people touching Jesus, discarded grave clothes, the disciples eating with Jesus post-Resurrection or them watching his physical body fly to heaven because those things would surely have helped to strengthen his argument!

The gospels, on the other hand, are not firsthand reports nor do they contain eyewitness testimony.

To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings." https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scho ... e-gospels/

Common Christian Objections:

Most of the objections to this argument fall into the following three categories:

1. "Hallucinations don't explain the resurrection."

It's important to note here that the word "hallucination" isn't found in our Biblical texts. That is a modern word that we import on ancient culture. The Biblical texts use the words "vision" and "revelation." "Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture, in which people believed that people saw appearances of God and angels, and had visions and dreams in which God and angels appeared to them." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011/04 ... urrection/ There are famous visions in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, 1 Enoch, etc that would have been well known to the Jews in Jesus' day so calling the appearances of Jesus "visions" would not be foreign considering the cultural background. Even in the NT there are plenty of visions mentioned. Of course, these days it's quite difficult to take anyone's spiritual visionary experience seriously. This becomes immediately obvious when apologists vehemently argue against the notion that the appearances of Jesus were just mere visions (obviously they don't take visions seriously either which is ironic considering both the OT and NT have numerous passages where people experience "visions"). Unfortunately, that's what the earliest source for Jesus' resurrection says they were and the Jewish background provides a foundation for these type of beliefs to arise.

2. "Resurrection was always physical, meaning it involved bringing corpses back to life."

This is false. Jewish belief in resurrection was actually quite diverse. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. Upon actually investigating the Jewish sources that mention resurrection it becomes immediately apparent that:

(a) There are very few sources that even mention it.

and

(b) There are some sources which exclude the resurrection of the body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12.

See pages 31-40 for an overview of the sources. https://books.google.com/books?id=z-VcBgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false

3. "Paul says Jesus had a body."

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are earthly/natural and those that are heavenly/spiritual. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. These "other/spiritual bodies" were in heaven which would explain why Paul says Jesus was experienced through visions and not physical interactions with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life on earth. So even if the Resurrected Jesus "had a body" of some sort it does not follow that this body was believed to have been on earth or physically interacted with at all. When Paul says "Jesus was raised" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form. The earliest view of Jesus' resurrection involved his simultaneous exaltation to heaven - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23, 2.6-7, 4.7-10; Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristi ... over_time/

[jimwalton]

Wow, lots to deal with here. I'll try to speak briefly, but somewhat thoroughly, to a number of your points, and we can continue the conversation from there.

First of all, the creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-7 has ben determined (by Christian and non-Christian scholars alike) to date to 3-5 years after the resurrection itself. So we have credible testimony that by a mere several years later, the church had solidified a creed expressing their belief in a physical resurrection, complete with references in case people wanted to ask an eye-witness.

Second, the discussion of the dating of the Gospels is a much longer discussion (there are some discussions under "the Bible" category of this website where they are discussed in depth), but there is very credible evidence that all of the Gospels were written before AD 65. The book of Acts doesn't mention the death of Peter or Paul, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Nero's persecutions of the church in 64, or several other significant historical events. And if Acts was written in the early 60s, then Luke was written before that. And if Luke got some of his information from Mark, Mark was even earlier. Your dates in your post are extremely liberal, or maybe I should say unrealistically, um, generous.

As far as Paul basically saying, "Paul basically says 'Jesus appeared to them and he appeared to me, too,' " the term (ὤφθη) speaks of actual appearance and visions. The context decides. As far as Peter and James, Paul is speaking of the literal bodily appearances of Jesus in the flesh to Peter, the 12, and then to James, the 500, etc. When it comes to Paul, he does intend to say that Jesus' resurrection appearance to him was qualitatively different from that of the other disciples. But what was that difference?

According to N.T. Wright, four factors tell strongly in favor of Paul's intention to refer to a real "seeing" with his ordinary eyes, rather than just spiritually or in a vision.

1. The proximity of 1 Cor. 9.1 means we should assume here in 1 Cor. 15 what is clear there—that Paul intended to refer to a seeing on par with normal human seeing. It may have been more, but it was not less. It was not simply a private experience.

2. "Last of all" (1 Cor. 15.8) makes it clear that, as far as Paul was concerned, his "seeing" of the risen Jesus was part of a sequence that came to an end. It was not part of an ongoing set of spiritual experiences that either he or anyone else were having, or were likely to have. It was of a different order.

3. It is noteworthy that 15.1-11 as a whole clearly speaks of a public event for which there is evidence in the form of witnesses who saw something and can be interrogated. Those who say that the risen Christ was not that kind of being, that the resurrection was not that sort of event, that it did not have that kind of evidence, and that any witnesses would simply be speaking of their own inner conviction and experience rather the evidence of their eyes, have had to say that Paul has here undermined the point he really should have been making.

4. The rest of chapter 15 does not speak of a non-bodily resurrection, nor does it speak of the risen body of Jesus as being made of light. Indeed, it is the non-luminosity of Jesus’ body that is striking (granted Dan. 12.3), not the luminosity. Even in the account of Paul’s conversion, Jesus’ body is not itself described as luminous but accompanied by a blinding flash of light. (The vision of Rev. 1.14-17 comes in a very different category.) The very close connection between Paul’s view of what happened to Jesus and his view of what will happen to all Christians, and the robustly “bodily” account of the latter given throughout 1 Corinthians 15, present an unanswerable case for the fact that when Paul spoke of Jesus “appearing” in v. 8 he did not mean that Jesus appeared in Paul’s heart or mind, but to his bodily eyes and sight, as a real human being, truly and bodily raised from the dead. Paul knows that there was something different about his “seeing” of Jesus from that of the others in the list. He was out of time; the appearances had all but come to a stop; but he was granted this not least as a sign of grace (15.10).

So saying, this was no "inner revelation" or a "spiritual seeing." There's so much more to say, but this post is going to get long, so I'll stop it here.

So your timeline is also wonky.

AD 35: There is an established creed in the NT church of Christ's physical resurrection

AD 55: The writing of Mark speaks of an empty tomb and a physical resurrection (Mk. 16.6-7).

AD 60 or so: The writings of Matthew and Luke speak of a physical resurrection. Their accounts don't contradict Mark, but give the resurrection from a different vantage point.

AD 80-90 or so: John speaks of walking through walls and a physical resurrection.

There is no evidence of a legendary accretion, but a consistent chain of custody of the story of a physical resurrection of Christ is consistent from decade to decade.

> Paul nowhere corroborates an empty tomb or anything like what Luke and John depict in their resurrection reports.

Paul attests to the empty tomb in 1 Cor. 15.4, a narrative that came to him within only a few years of the event of the crucifixion and resurrection itself.

Then you go way off to the side with...

>The gospels, on the other hand, are not firsthand reports nor do they contain eyewitness testimony.

This, again, is a major discussion, and conversations to this end appear elsewhere in the website. Needless to say, the evidence is stronger that the Gospels are firsthand reports and contain reams of eyewitness testimony than what the minimalists claim. We can have this conversation if you want, but I won't go into right here because this post is getting lengthy.

I know that this is only the beginning of our conversation, so I welcome your reply. If it would be more convenient for you, we can talk about the Gospels dating question under "The Bible" forum," which is also where we can talk about the Gospel authorship. These are large conversations, though, so should maybe be separated.

I'm glad to continue the conversation on any of the subjects, though.

[gnostic]

Before responding to your points can you please cite the passage where Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that was not a vision or a revelation? As for 1 Cor 9:1, Paul "sees" Jesus in a vision unless you've discovered some other source? Also, where does he give evidence of the Resurrected Jesus on earth before ascending to heaven?

Moreover, you'll notice that the dates I gave are the scholarly consensus, meaning most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree upon those dates. Even going by the earliest church tradition, Irenaeus says that Mark composed after Peter and Paul's deaths which, by definition, places it after 65CE. The Anti-Marcionite prologue also corroborates this testimony of post 65 dating for Mark. Even if you reject scholarly consensus dating you still have to explain why all the inconsistencies and the fact that none of the appearance chronologies match Paul's from 1 Cor 15:5-8. If the reports were historical and based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get.

[jimwalton]

Glad to. Let's start in 1 Cor. 9.1. Here Paul uses the Greek term ὁράω, the normal word for ordinary sight. The perfect tense indicates the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination, and the continuing existence of the finished results. It views action as a finished product, and then continues to exist in its finished state. As N.T. Wright says, "This is not a way of speaking that Paul has been drawn into by adopting, despite his own better judgment, the Christian practice of referring to such revelatory experiences as 'seeing' the Lord. He wants to make his point because he believes it to be true, and the truth matters for his argument.

"The combination of this verse with 15.8-11 makes it clear that Paul intends a 'seeing' that is something quite different from the manifold spiritual experiences, the 'seeings' with the eye of the heart, which many Christians in most periods of history have experienced. The Corinthians had all kinds of spiritual experiences for which Paul congratulates them in 1.4-7; but they had not had this experience. Paul, too, had many spiritual experiences as his life and work have progressed, but he is not here referring to something that might occur again. This was, for him, a one-off, initiatory 'seeing,' which constituted him as an apostle but would not be repeated. The resurrection appearances of Jesus came to a stop. His was the last; almost, in fact, too late.

"ἑόρακα is the normal word for ordinary sight. It does not imply that this was a subjective vision or a private revelation. Part of the point of it is that it was a real seeing, not a 'vision' such as anyone in the church might have. The same is emphatically true of 1 Cor. 15.8-11."

In other words, he's claiming he actually saw Jesus, not in a visionary, spiritual-experience way, but like with his eyes as someone would normally see the chair one is about to sit in.

As far as the dates for the writing of the Gospels, you must be aware that there is no scholarly consensus about such things. The debate is ongoing. It is simply not true that "most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree upon those dates." There is an ultra-conservative camp that puts them all before AD 60, and there's some evidence for such. Most evangelical scholars put Mark in the 60s, Mt & Lk in the 60s or 70s, and John in about 90. Most liberal and non-Christian scholars put them where you did. And finally the minimalists put them all in the 80s-125 or so, for which there is little support.

You're right that Irenaeus places Mark after 65, but Papias puts Mark between 55-60, so there are conflicting traditions.

As far as the inconsistencies between the resurrection accounts, it's often due to the differing agendas each author had in their writings. Each was trying to show Christ from a different vantage point. We might see a similar "discrepancy" if we challenged various writers to produce a record of Donald Trump's presidency so far. It really depends who did the writing as to what perspective you would get. The accounts would be greatly divergent, but possibly all true because DT is such a complex, inflammatory, love-him-or-hate-him kind of guy. Jesus was also a social and religious enigma (but please don't think I'm saying he's like DT!), and it doesn't surprise me there are different takes on what he was like.

If they were historical, should we be able to expect more consistency? Good question. Possibly, but not necessarily. Jesus just may have been the kind of personality that defied boxes. Was Stephen Jobs a hero, an icon, or a jerk? Was Franklin Roosevelt the savior of America or the destroyer of it? Was Richard Nixon a mastermind or a criminal? Real life is not easily put into boxes and unilaterally explained and done. Complex people defy simple treatment.

> none of the appearance chronologies [in the Gospels] match Paul's from 1 Cor 15:5-8

Paul may only be making a nod to chronology and not attempting to be specific. Peter may be listed first because of his primacy in the church. He is listed first among the apostles in Mt. 10.2. But we read that Jesus sent a special message to Peter after the resurrection in Mk. 16.7. And in Luke 24.34, Peter is listed as to having had a special appearance. So maybe we shouldn't be so quick to try to draw a timeline. No Gospel writer is telling everything there is to tell.

But then it's true that Jesus appeared to the 12. John 20 records that for us.

There is no record in the Gospels of an appearance to the "500," so we can't comment on the chronology of that one; but it may be in order for all we know.

"Then he appeared to James." We don't even know to which James this refers (Jesus' brother? James of Jerusalem? James the son of Alphaeus"), let alone when it happened. Again, we can't say it's not chronological, because we have no record of this event. to me it makes sense that this is Jesus' brother who later became leader of the Jerusalem church, but it's speculative. Paul does claim to have gathered information from Cephas and James in Galatians 1.18-19. Regardless, this sighting isn't mentioned in any Gospel account, so we can't take a stand on chronology. It certainly doesn't mean that any of these accounts are false. No writer claims to include every detail. That wasn't the nature of the Gospels nor of Paul's account here in 1 Cor. 15.

"Then to all the apostles" probably refers to the ascension, since Paul has already mentioned an appearance to the apostles. It's significant that Paul doesn't include himself in this group, since through his epistles he is constantly fighting for recognition as an apostle. But he is being specific here about these resurrection appearances, and so is careful not to group himself with those who saw the Lord before His ascension.

But since an apostle was "one who saw the risen Lord," Paul is also firm in claiming to be one of that tribe. He could make no such claim if his experience was just a spiritual experience or a misty vision in the night. Lots of people have those. Paul is claiming an experience of actual sight, like the apostles had, but also different from theirs in that it wasn't before the ascension.

[gnostic]

Glad to. Let's start in 1 Cor. 9.1. Here Paul uses the Greek term ὁράω, the normal word for ordinary sight.

ὁράω/horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception). http://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Also, isn't 1 Cor 9:1 a reference to Paul's Damascus Road vision or have you discovered some other source that describes a different appearance to Paul?

The perfect tense indicates the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination, and the continuing existence of the finished results. It views action as a finished product, and then continues to exist in its finished state. As N.T. Wright says, "This is not a way of speaking that Paul has been drawn into by adopting, despite his own better judgment, the Christian practice of referring to such revelatory experiences as 'seeing' the Lord. He wants to make his point because he believes it to be true, and the truth matters for his argument.

This seems to just be obfuscation of the actual issue. The appearance to Paul was a vision from heaven (unless Acts 26:19 is wrong?), not a physical encounter with a revived corpse on earth.

"The combination of this verse with 15.8-11 makes it clear that Paul intends a 'seeing' that is something quite different from the manifold spiritual experiences, the 'seeings' with the eye of the heart, which many Christians in most periods of history have experienced. The Corinthians had all kinds of spiritual experiences for which Paul congratulates them in 1.4-7; but they had not had this experience. Paul, too, had many spiritual experiences as his life and work have progressed, but he is not here referring to something that might occur again. This was, for him, a one-off, initiatory 'seeing,' which constituted him as an apostle but would not be repeated. The resurrection appearances of Jesus came to a stop. His was the last; almost, in fact, too late

Paul actually indicates no difference in quality, type, or nature of the appearances. The only distinction he makes is in the "timing" of the appearance. His is just last in sequence of the same type of appearances. If Paul can use the verb ophthe for his vision then what's preventing him from using the same verb to refer to other people's "visions"?

"ἑόρακα is the normal word for ordinary sight. It does not imply that this was a subjective vision or a private revelation. Part of the point of it is that it was a real seeing, not a 'vision' such as anyone in the church might have. The same is emphatically true of 1 Cor. 15.8-11."

The appearance to Paul was a heavenly vision involving a bright light and a voice from heaven. Acts 9:7 says the others "didn't see" anyone. That means that the appearance of Jesus to Paul must have been subjective. Otherwise, they would have seen him too.

In other words, he's claiming he actually saw Jesus, not in a visionary, spiritual-experience way, but like with his eyes as someone would normally see the chair one is about to sit in.

So Paul's vision wasn't a vision then?

As far as the dates for the writing of the Gospels, you must be aware that there is no scholarly consensus about such things.

Yes there is. You're being willfully dishonest. Suffice it to say, most experts disagree with you. We can leave it there.

You're right that Irenaeus places Mark after 65, but Papias puts Mark between 55-60, so there are conflicting traditions.

Papias does not give a date for Mark. You're mistaken. Irenaeus is the earliest church father testimony we have in regards to Mark's dating. It follows that all the other gospels must come after 70CE.

As far as the inconsistencies between the resurrection accounts, it's often due to the differing agendas each author had in their writings. Each was trying to show Christ from a different vantage point.

Well, it's pretty clear that the earliest and only firsthand source says Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. You don't get any of the physical encounters or the empty tomb until the later gospels which are not firsthand sources. They're written in third person. Each account grows more "physical" over time. I find your excuse to not be the most probable explanation. Legendary growth takes the cake here.

Paul may only be making a nod to chronology and not attempting to be specific. Peter may be listed first because of his primacy in the church. He is listed first among the apostles in Mt. 10.2. But we read that Jesus sent a special message to Peter after the resurrection in Mk. 16.7. And in Luke 24.34, Peter is listed as to having had a special appearance. So maybe we shouldn't be so quick to try to draw a timeline. No Gospel writer is telling everything there is to tell.

Okay but still, none of the appearance chronologies match the earliest preaching in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This certainly doesn't help historicity.

There is no record in the Gospels of an appearance to the "500," so we can't comment on the chronology of that one; but it may be in order for all we know.

If an appearance to 500 people really happened then why didn't any of the gospel authors mention it? Obviously, they must not have found it worthy of recording.

"Then he appeared to James." We don't even know to which James this refers (Jesus' brother? James of Jerusalem? James the son of Alphaeus"), let alone when it happened. Again, we can't say it's not chronological, because we have no record of this event.

Paul uses the words "then" and "last of all" which indicates he intended to list a chronological order of events.

"Then to all the apostles" probably refers to the ascension, since Paul has already mentioned an appearance to the apostles. It's significant that Paul doesn't include himself in this group, since through his epistles he is constantly fighting for recognition as an apostle. But he is being specific here about these resurrection appearances, and so is careful not to group himself with those who saw the Lord before His ascension.

You don't get the Ascension until Luke/Acts. Paul, Mark, or Matthew don't mention it.

So my original questions still stand. Where does Paul give any evidence whatsoever of experiencing the Risen Christ in a way other than a vision or a revelation? Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was on earth before floating off to heaven? If you cannot provide any evidence then you don't have any right or reason to claim that Paul or the earliest Christians thought the appearances were physical. You're letting your knowledge of the later accounts influence your reading of Paul but that is just anachronistic and fallacious because Paul nowhere corroborates such reports.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for a good discussion. We'll keep at this.

> ὁράω

Rather than just from one source (bible hub), let's gather our information from as many reliable sources as we can. I've been gather data on this term for a while (because it matters) from a variety of places.

From Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich's Lexicon of the NT:

1. A. See; catch sight of; notice (of sense perception). a. With accusative of person: a literal seeing. b. With accusative of thing: see a vision. c. As a periphrasis for “see someone, whether literal or figurative. d. Passive: “Become visible; appear,” whether of persons appearing in a natural way or of a vision. B. “Experience; witness.” C. Figurative of mental and spiritual perception a. “Notice, recognize, understand.” b. (Mentally) look at or upon; consider.”
2. A. “Look on or at someone.” B. “See to; take care.”

So it can mean literal seeing, metaphorical seeing, or figurative seeing.

From N.T. Wright: The verb, occurring three times here, and then again with reference to Paul in v. 8, can in principle be translated either as “seen by” or “appeared to.” The term itself, however, is not the deciding factor. Its meaning here must be judged on wider criteria.

From Kirk MacGregor: The verb orao is an elastic term, which, just like its English equivalent “to see,” does not by itself specify anything about the character of what was seen, in this case, whether the resurrection appearances were bodily or visionary. This qualitative question can only be settled by appealing to already known information about the character of what was seen.

From Craig Keener: “Appeared” was used in antiquity both for visions and for actual appearances (often of God or angels).

We have a number of sources and reputable scholars saying the term is flexible, depending on the context. This doesn't disagree with Bible Hub's definition, though Bible hub says, as you claim, "often" with metaphorical meaning.

So what would make us think Paul's experience was metaphorical rather than physical (actual sight)?

N.T. Wright thinks it was physical. "The list of witnesses is a clear indication that Paul doesn’t suppose Jesus’ resurrection to be a metaphorization of an experience of the disciples. The great variety in times and places of the appearances makes it difficult to hold all the reports of appearances makes it difficult to hold all the reports of appearances to be legendary."

Kirk MacGregor thinks it was physical. "Since ὤφθη stipulates that Christ was seen, and the previous two lines clearly affirm that the same “he”—namely, his physical body—emerged from the grave, the context naturally indicates that the physical, bodily Jesus was seen by the witnesses listed in vv. 5-6a, 7. Therefore, we have extremely good grounds for concluding that the earliest disciples who composed the 1 Cor. 15.3b-6a, 7 creed both regarded the grave-emptying resurrection of Jesus as historical and attested that they themselves had seen the physically risen Jesus after his death."

Keener: "By all Jewish definitions of resurrection, especially the Palestinian tradition such as Paul sites here, Paul must mean a literal appearance."

And Paul's experience? As I mentioned (just so I don't need to write it all again), Paul does not consider his "seeing" of Christ to have been figurative or spiritual. Paul is claiming to have physically seen the risen Christ, though not before his ascension. For instance, when Mary saw the angel Gabriel, was it a spiritual vision or was the angel there with her? I would claim there with her. She saw him with her eyes, not just in a dream (as Joseph did). So also with Joshua in Joshua 5.13-15. I would claim so also with S/Paul. Paul's terminology is not specific enough in Acts to help us. Acts 9.1-9 (also Acts 22.6-10; 26.13) speaks of a light from heaven that flashed around him, but it's not specific about what he saw. The word used in Acts 26.19 is ὀπτασίᾳ, and it can mean "a vision; a sighting; an appearance," so it also is inconclusive.

More to the issue, it seems, is not the terms Paul is using but what he means by them.

> Paul actually indicates no difference in quality, type, or nature of the appearances. The only distinction he makes is in the "timing" of the appearance.

I disagree. The context suggests the opposite. As Kirk MacGregor writes, "Notice that Paul does not follow up the 3-fold sequence of hoti ophthe…epeita ophthe…epeita ohthe with either “and last of all he was seen also by me” or “and last of all he was seen also by me, as to one untimely born.” If Paul had wanted to imply that his appearance was identical in character to those of the original disciples, then he surely would have used one or the other. … Instead, Paul intentionally breaks the diction of the 3-fold ophthe by writing “and last of all as to one untimely born he was seen also by me,” thereby separating his experience from that of the previous disciples. This observation rules out the possibility that Paul is here attempting to convey that he experienced Christ in a manner qualitatively identical to those listed in the creed.

"But Paul moves one step further. By placing 'he was seen also by me' after 'as to one abnormally born,' Paul explicitly shows 'as to one abnormally born' to be a qualifying phrase that modifies 'he appeared to me also' rather than a temporal indicator. Hence Paul uses 'as to one abnormally born' to explain how the character of his appearance was qualitatively distinct from those recounted in the primitive tradition. While the previous disciples 'saw' Jesus in the normal fashion, Paul admits to have 'as to one untimely born seen' Jesus—namely, to have seen him in an abnormal fashion. This is one reason why Paul asserts in the next sentence, 'For I am least of all the apostles, who does not deserve to be called an apostle.'

"Far from alleging that his experience possessed the same character as the resurrection appearance recounted in the creed, then, Paul goes to great pains to insist that his experience differed in character from the appearances to 'those who were in Christ before I was” (Rom. 16.7).'

In other words, Paul's point and purpose is not temporal ("The only distinction he makes is in the 'timing' of the appearance").

> If Paul can use the verb ophthe for his vision then what's preventing him from using the same verb to refer to other people's "visions"?

I've already explained this. When Paul speaks of his seeing Christ, he speaks of it in a way that implies he was the last to see Christ in this way. Visions and spiritual experiences will continue, but Paul belongs in the group of those who saw Christ physically.

> Yes there is. You're being willfully dishonest. Suffice it to say, most experts disagree with you. We can leave it there.

Absolutely not ("you are being willfully dishonest" and "we can leave it there"), and I don't appreciate the accusation.

As I have already briefly covered, Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero's persecutions (65), the martyrdoms of Peter (65), possibly Paul (64) or James (61), nor the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on. There is reason to believe it was written before AD 61. Also, many of the expressions in Acts are very early and primitive, suggesting a date earlier than 60. In addition, Acts deals with issues that were especially important prior to Jerusalem's fall. There are very good reasons to believe it was written possibly in the early 60s, which means Luke was written before that. Mark would have been before that.

Mark preserves Aramaic expressions that Matthew and Luke do not, suggesting a very early writing. It was also written with an atmosphere of theological understanding about the message and ministry of Jesus that is still inits primitive and elemental form (no info about virgin birth, nothing about sightings of Jesus after resurrection; it's main concern is Jesus at war with Satan, etc.). Papias claims Mark was with Peter in Rome in the late 50s; Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written was Peter was still alive. Some Marcan material seems to stem from the controversy over the status of Gentiles in Christianity, a concern from the 30s to the 50s, but not after (and a completely dead issue by AD 70).

Albright, Moule, Dodd, Robinson, and many others contend that there may be little in the entire NT later than AD 70.

There is more, but hopefully that enough to prove that I'm not being willfully dishonest, or that "most scholars disagree" with me.

> Papias and a date for Mark

Papias wrote that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and wrote down what he taught. It is believed that Mark wrote from Rome. T. W. Manson argues that Peter was in Rome between 55-60; Justin Martyr and Eusebius suggest that Peter arrived in Rome "shortly after" AD 54. If we accept the first Clementine tradition as genuine, and put it alongside the testimony of Justin, Hippolytus, and Eusebius, we are left with the date of AD 55 for the first draft of Mark.

> Well, it's pretty clear that the earliest and only firsthand source says Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations.

This is not true at all. The Gospels indicate that that the claims to have seen Jesus physically started within 48 hours of his death. The creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-7 has its source within 2-5 years after Jesus' death, proving that the teaching of Jesus' physical resurrection had solidified into a creed within this short amount of time. Paul's testimony of his conversion, which was probably AD 35-37. And remember that Paul's testimony is coming from a "hostile," not a follower.

> until the later gospels which are not firsthand sources

Strongly disagree. We haven't yet had this conversation. The evidence is stronger for the traditional authorship of the Gospels than for alternative explanation, and the evidence is substantial that the Gospels (Mt & Jn) are firsthand accounts, that Mark is a second-hand account, and Luke is a well-researched account. But that's a different discussion. Your cavalier statements like "which are not firsthand sources" and "Legendary growth takes the cake here" are pre-conversation conclusions rather than post-conversation. We have much to talk about here, but I obviously disagree strongly with you. I don't know where you've gotten your information, so we can have this conversation as you wish. Just don't draw your conclusion before the research is explored.

> If an appearance to 500 people really happened then why didn't any of the gospel authors mention it? Obviously, they must not have found it worthy of recording.

For a variety of possible reasons, though it's all guesswork. Most probably it didn't fit their agenda. Each Gospel writer had a purpose in creating their account from the vantage point they chose. They honed in on specific resurrection accounts to serve their purposes. The sighting by 500 at one time fit Paul's thesis, but not theirs. I have no problem with that. I read the news accounts about Trump, Chuck Shumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Russian "collusion," neo-Nazis, the Antifa movement. Each writer is quite selective about what they choose to record. Editorialists and journalists are that way. All historians are selective as well, though not to the extent of journalists.

> Paul uses the words "then" and "last of all" which indicates he intended to list a chronological order of events.

I agree, but we can't say this order is incorrect since we don't have any other corroborating accounts.

> So my original questions still stand. Where does Paul give any evidence whatsoever of experiencing the Risen Christ in a way other than a vision or a revelation?

It doesn't still stand. I have answered it with texts and information. Paul experienced the risen Christ in a physical sight sense, not in a spiritual, figurative, solely visionary, or metaphorical sense. The words he uses and the way he couches them in 1 Cor 15 reveal that he claims to have seen the risen Christ like the disciples did (with physical eyes), but qualitatively differently than the disciples did (not before his ascension). He claims to have been the last of a sequence, separating himself from those who see Christ merely spiritually or in a vision.

> If you cannot provide any evidence then you don't have any right or reason to claim that Paul or the earliest Christians thought the appearances were physical.

I have given you the evidence. Possibly it would be beneficial to read back through the thread. (and I guess we will need to have the conversation about the Gospels dating and their authorship, though I said you can find quite a bit of information on this website under "The Bible" forum.)

[gnostic]

> ὁράω...
So it can mean literal seeing, metaphorical seeing, or figurative seeing.

Okay and where does Paul indicate that the "seeing" was in a way other than a vision or a revelation? You'll recall in the original post from Reddit that Paul only indicates that the Risen Jesus was experienced spiritually i.e. through visions/revelations. Have you discovered another passage where Paul indicates something different? Because if not, then you must admit Paul gives no clear evidence for the "physical" type of seeing.

From N.T. Wright: The verb, occurring three times here, and then again with reference to Paul in v. 8, can in principle be translated either as “seen by” or “appeared to.” The term itself, however, is not the deciding factor. Its meaning here must be judged on wider criteria.

From Kirk MacGregor: The verb orao is an elastic term, which, just like its English equivalent “to see,” does not by itself specify anything about the character of what was seen, in this case, whether the resurrection appearances were bodily or visionary. This qualitative question can only be settled by appealing to already known information about the character of what was seen.

From Craig Keener: “Appeared” was used in antiquity both for visions and for actual appearances (often of God or angels).

Again, the appearance to Paul was an "inner revelation" - Gal. 1:12-16, also described as a "vision from heaven" in Acts involving a bright light and a voice which other people present don't see or hear properly. Paul places places this "vision" in the same list as the other "appearances" while using the same verb ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) for each one in 1 Cor 15:5-8. He does not indicate a difference in the nature of the appearances. If Paul can use ὤφθη for his own vision then why can't he use it to refer to other people's visions?

We have a number of sources and reputable scholars saying the term is flexible, depending on the context. This doesn't disagree with Bible Hub's definition, though Bible hub says, as you claim, "often" with metaphorical meaning.

By now, the "context" is crystal clear. Paul gives no evidence of the "physical" type of seeing.

N.T. Wright thinks it was physical. "The list of witnesses is a clear indication that Paul doesn’t suppose Jesus’ resurrection to be a metaphorization of an experience of the disciples. The great variety in times and places of the appearances makes it difficult to hold all the reports of appearances makes it difficult to hold all the reports of appearances to be legendary."

How about you ask N.T. Wright the same questions I'm asking you. Namely, where does Paul say the Resurrected Jesus was "seen" or experienced in a way that WAS NOT a vision?

Kirk MacGregor thinks it was physical. "Since ὤφθη stipulates that Christ was seen, and the previous two lines clearly affirm that the same “he”—namely, his physical body—emerged from the grave, the context naturally indicates that the physical, bodily Jesus was seen by the witnesses listed in vv. 5-6a, 7. Therefore, we have extremely good grounds for concluding that the earliest disciples who composed the 1 Cor. 15.3b-6a, 7 creed both regarded the grave-emptying resurrection of Jesus as historical and attested that they themselves had seen the physically risen Jesus after his death."

MacGregor is just reading his own beliefs into the text. It does not say "a body was raised from the grave, walked around on earth then floated to heaven while the disciples watched." No, it just says "he was raised" which could mean a simple one-step spiritual exaltation to heaven.

"The important point is that, in the primitive preaching, resurrection and exaltation belong together as two sides of one coin and that it implies a geographical transfer from earth to heaven (hence it is possible to say that in the primitive kerygma resurrection is 'resurrection to heaven')". - Arie Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, pg. 127

"the general conviction in the earliest Christian preaching is that, as of the day of his resurrection, Jesus was in heaven, seated at the right hand of God. Resurrection and exaltation were regarded as two sides of one coin…" - ibid, pg. 130. https://books.google.com/books?id=QIW7J ... &q&f=false

Mr. Kirk is guilty of the same offense as you are which is anachronistically reading in his knowledge of the later accounts into the earliest one which nowhere corroborates such things! This is just a fallacious approach to history because it does not follow that the earliest Christians shared the same beliefs.

Keener: "By all Jewish definitions of resurrection, especially the Palestinian tradition such as Paul sites here, Paul must mean a literal appearance."

Keener's just wrong. First of all, the New Testament makes it quite clear that the "appearance" to Paul was a vision, not a physical encounter with a revived corpse on earth. Secondly, there was no consensus view in regards to resurrection in Second Temple Judaism. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. There are some sources which exclude the resurrection of the body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12. https://books.google.com/books?id=z-VcB ... &q&f=false

And Paul's experience? As I mentioned (just so I don't need to write it all again), Paul does not consider his "seeing" of Christ to have been figurative or spiritual.

What is the terminology he uses to describe the appearance again? He uses the words "visions," "revelations" and a Greek verb for "appeared" which was commonly used to denote the "spiritual" type of "seeing." So let there be no ambiguity. All Paul gives evidence for are spiritual encounters, not physical ones.

Paul is claiming to have physically seen the risen Christ, though not before his ascension.

Where does Paul make a distinction between pre and post ascension appearances? Aren't you getting that from Luke/Acts which most scholars places after 85CE indicating that it was a later development in the story?

For instance, when Mary saw the angel Gabriel, was it a spiritual vision or was the angel there with her? I would claim there with her. She saw him with her eyes, not just in a dream (as Joseph did). So also with Joshua in Joshua 5.13-15. I would claim so also with S/Paul. Paul's terminology is not specific enough in Acts to help us. Acts 9.1-9 (also Acts 22.6-10; 26.13) speaks of a light from heaven that flashed around him, but it's not specific about what he saw. The word used in Acts 26.19 is ὀπτασίᾳ, and it can mean "a vision; a sighting; an appearance," so it also is inconclusive.

So Paul's vision wasn't a vision then? Wow! That sure is a new radical interpretation of the road to Damascus story! Are you saying Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus on earth before he ascended to heaven? Which translation renders Acts 26:19 as something other than "vision"? http://biblehub.com/acts/26-19.htm

Appearances from heaven are, by definition, visions.

More to the issue, it seems, is not the terms Paul is using but what he means by them.

He means exactly what he says! They're visions/revelations from heaven i.e. spiritual (not physical) encounters. These type of experiences don't necessarily have anything to do with reality.

I disagree. The context suggests the opposite. As Kirk MacGregor writes, "Notice that Paul does not follow up the 3-fold sequence of hoti ophthe…epeita ophthe…epeita ohthe with either “and last of all he was seen also by me” or “and last of all he was seen also by me, as to one untimely born.” If Paul had wanted to imply that his appearance was identical in character to those of the original disciples, then he surely would have used one or the other. … Instead, Paul intentionally breaks the diction of the 3-fold ophthe by writing “and last of all as to one untimely born he was seen also by me,” thereby separating his experience from that of the previous disciples. This observation rules out the possibility that Paul is here attempting to convey that he experienced Christ in a manner qualitatively identical to those listed in the creed.

Again, we've already established that you or MacGregor don't have any evidence from the earliest source to claim that the other appearances were not visions so I'm afraid your objection is groundless. Paul does not, in any way, indicate that the nature or type of appearances were different. He just uses the words "untimely" and "last of all" which are indicators of timing. That is not enough to warrant a "qualitative difference." Paul does not say "I only had a vision of Jesus while the appearances to the others were more physical." No such distinction is made. Macgregor's straining of the text to mean what he wants it to is just a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious implication - Paul is equating the appearances.

"But Paul moves one step further. By placing 'he was seen also by me' after 'as to one abnormally born,' Paul explicitly shows 'as to one abnormally born' to be a qualifying phrase that modifies 'he appeared to me also' rather than a temporal indicator. Hence Paul uses 'as to one abnormally born' to explain how the character of his appearance was qualitatively distinct from those recounted in the primitive tradition. While the previous disciples 'saw' Jesus in the normal fashion, Paul admits to have 'as to one untimely born seen' Jesus—namely, to have seen him in an abnormal fashion. This is one reason why Paul asserts in the next sentence, 'For I am least of all the apostles, who does not deserve to be called an apostle.'

This has already been pointed out to you in another thread:

"The remark that Jesus appeared "last of all" is not evidence that he distinguished the type of appearance he was granted from those of Peter and the twelve. On the contrary, it marks his experience as the last in a series of the same type of experiences. The remark that Jesus appeared to him "as to one prematurely born" (v. 8) does not imply that the nature of the appearance was any different. It was Paul who was different - he was not even a disciple yet. This interpretation is supported by the remark in the following verse that he was persecuting the church of God (i.e. even at the time that Jesus appeared to him)." - Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel, pg. 124.

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

So I'm afraid Macgregor doesn't have the final say on the matter.

"Far from alleging that his experience possessed the same character as the resurrection appearance recounted in the creed, then, Paul goes to great pains to insist that his experience differed in character from the appearances to 'those who were in Christ before I was” (Rom. 16.7).'

There's nothing about Resurrection appearances in there. How do you know he's not referring to the earthly ministry before his death?

In other words, Paul's point and purpose is not temporal ("The only distinction he makes is in the 'timing' of the appearance").

Yes it is. That is literally the only distinction he makes. He uses the same terminology for each appearance in list and gives no evidence elsewhere for "physically" seeing Jesus.

I've already explained this. When Paul speaks of his seeing Christ, he speaks of it in a way that implies he was the last to see Christ in this way. Visions and spiritual experiences will continue, but Paul belongs in the group of those who saw Christ physically.

Huh? The appearance to Paul was a vision where no physical body was actually "seen" but rather a bright light and a voice from heaven was experienced! Stop contradicting what the New Testament says the appearance to Paul was like! This is also avoiding the question. The correct answer is that there's absolutely nothing precluding Paul from using ὤφθη to mean visions! If Paul can "see" Jesus in a vision and claim apostleship as in 1 Cor 9:1 then why couldn't the other apostles have had a vision and claimed the same thing?

Absolutely not ("you are being willfully dishonest" and "we can leave it there"), and I don't appreciate the accusation.

Ok. Type "consensus dating of the gospels" into Google and tell me what you find. You're dishonestly trying to claim your early fringe dating has more sway in scholarship than it actually does. You'll quickly see that I am correct that there is a consensus view in regards to dating of the gospels. It's fine to disagree with it but to deny that it actually is the case is not intellectually honest.

As I have already briefly covered, Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero's persecutions (65), the martyrdoms of Peter (65), possibly Paul (64) or James (61), nor the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on.

All arguments from silence. The gnostic gospels don't mention those things either. Should they be dated early too?

There is reason to believe it was written before AD 61. Also, many of the expressions in Acts are very early and primitive, suggesting a date earlier than 60. In addition, Acts deals with issues that were especially important prior to Jerusalem's fall. There are very good reasons to believe it was written possibly in the early 60s, which means Luke was written before that. Mark would have been before that.

Nope, Luke shows clear knowledge of the destruction of the temple and Acts was written after Luke. Most scholars agree that Matthew, Luke and John were all written post 70. Mark may have been written as early as 65 but most hold to post 70 as well.

Mark preserves Aramaic expressions that Matthew and Luke do not, suggesting a very early writing. It was also written with an atmosphere of theological understanding about the message and ministry of Jesus that is still inits primitive and elemental form (no info about virgin birth, nothing about sightings of Jesus after resurrection; it's main concern is Jesus at war with Satan, etc.). Papias claims Mark was with Peter in Rome in the late 50s; Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written was Peter was still alive. Some Marcan material seems to stem from the controversy over the status of Gentiles in Christianity, a concern from the 30s to the 50s, but not after (and a completely dead issue by AD 70).

Irenaeus and the Anti-Marcionite prologue say Mark wrote after Peter and Paul's deaths in 65. This is the earliest church tradition. Again, the consensus view is that Mark was written around 70. You can just acknowledge that you're in the fringe here.

Albright, Moule, Dodd, Robinson, and many others contend that there may be little in the entire NT later than AD 70.

And that's a fringe view.

Papias wrote that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and wrote down what he taught. It is believed that Mark wrote from Rome. T. W. Manson argues that Peter was in Rome between 55-60; Justin Martyr and Eusebius suggest that Peter arrived in Rome "shortly after" AD 54. If we accept the first Clementine tradition as genuine, and put it alongside the testimony of Justin, Hippolytus, and Eusebius, we are left with the date of AD 55 for the first draft of Mark.

Again, Papias does not indicate anything about Mark's date. So you'll have to go with the earliest church father who does and that is Irenaeus. Therefore, the lower limit from the external evidence is 65CE. Mark cannot date any earlier than that.

This is not true at all.

Ok, where does Paul say that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way other than a vision or a revelation? Last chance.

The Gospels indicate that that the claims to have seen Jesus physically started within 48 hours of his death.

Those are later accounts written in third person. Paul is the only firsthand source we have.

The creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-7 has its source within 2-5 years after Jesus' death, proving that the teaching of Jesus' physical resurrection had solidified into a creed within this short amount of time.

No, there's nothing about physical corpse revivification in there. Sorry, you're reading that in.

Paul's testimony of his conversion, which was probably AD 35-37. And remember that Paul's testimony is coming from a "hostile," not a follower.

And remember Paul had a "vision" of Jesus, not a physical encounter with a risen corpse.

Strongly disagree. We haven't yet had this conversation. The evidence is stronger for the traditional authorship of the Gospels than for alternative explanation, and the evidence is substantial that the Gospels (Mt & Jn) are firsthand accounts, that Mark is a second-hand account, and Luke is a well-researched account. But that's a different discussion. Your cavalier statements like "which are not firsthand sources" and "Legendary growth takes the cake here" are pre-conversation conclusions rather than post-conversation. We have much to talk about here, but I obviously disagree strongly with you. I don't know where you've gotten your information, so we can have this conversation as you wish. Just don't draw your conclusion before the research is explored.

You can disagree all you want but the fact remains that Paul's report is the only firsthand source you have. The gospels are all written in third person and show obvious legendary growth that evolves from visions to physically touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! This is not history.

For a variety of possible reasons, though it's all guesswork. Most probably it didn't fit their agenda. Each Gospel writer had a purpose in creating their account from the vantage point they chose. They honed in on specific resurrection accounts to serve their purposes. The sighting by 500 at one time fit Paul's thesis, but not theirs. I have no problem with that. I read the news accounts about Trump, Chuck Shumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Russian "collusion," neo-Nazis, the Antifa movement. Each writer is quite selective about what they choose to record. Editorialists and journalists are that way. All historians are selective as well, though not to the extent of journalists.

Considering that the evangelists main objective was conversion and preaching the truth then you'd think that an amazing appearance to 500 people would be worth mentioning...

It doesn't still stand. I have answered it with texts and information. Paul experienced the risen Christ in a physical sight sense, not in a spiritual, figurative, solely visionary, or metaphorical sense.

Uh-huh. Let me know when you find that source that says the appearance to Paul was not a vision. I think you'll be looking for a long time then after that you'll have to convince all the churches to update the Orthodox view that Paul's "vision" wasn't actually a "vision." Let me know how that works for you.

The words he uses and the way he couches them in 1 Cor 15 reveal that he claims to have seen the risen Christ like the disciples did (with physical eyes), but qualitatively differently than the disciples did (not before his ascension). He claims to have been the last of a sequence, separating himself from those who see Christ merely spiritually or in a vision.

This has been decisively refuted. Paul gives no evidence for the physical type of seeing with the eyes. According to the Acts reports, Paul was blinded meaning his experience of "seeing" must have happened internally. Moreover, we know that no physical person was there since Acts 9:7 says the others didn't see anyone.

[gnostic]

To save you the time so you don't have to respond to all that. Let's just keep it simple.

Just admit that:

a. Paul gives no clear evidence of the "physical" type of seeing (he only indicates the spiritual kind.) Nor does he even give any evidence of the Risen Jesus on earth.
b. That your main reason for assuming the appearances were "physical" comes from the later gospels, not from Paul (the earliest and only firsthand source).
c. That there actually is a scholarly consensus dating position when it comes to the gospels.

We can go from there.

[jimwalton]

It seems you haven't read anything I wrote, though you must have.

> Paul gives no clear evidence of the "physical" type of seeing (he only indicates the spiritual kind).

I cannot agree with this at all, for the reasons I have spelled out in detail.

1. Paul's intent in 1 Cor. 15.8 is to show that his seeing of Christ was not before the ascension, and therefore qualitatively different from the "seeing" experienced by the disciples. And yet he still claimed to have physically seen the Lord (not by hallucination, visionary mist, or spiritual experience).

a. In 1 Cor. 9.1 Paul intends us to understand he saw Christ on a par with normal human seeing.
b. His "last of all" in 1 Cor. 15.8 makes it clear that his seeing of Christ was the last of a sequence that came to end, while vision and spiritual experiences would continue.
c. 1 Cor. 15.1-11 as a whole speaks clearly of public seeing for which there is evidence in the form of witnesses who saw something and canoe interrogated. Paul puts his experience in that category.
d. The rest of chapter 15 speaks of bodily resurrection.

2. Though Christ's appearance to Paul was accompanied by a bright light (Acts 9, 22, 26), Jesus' body is not described as luminous. Paul's writing in 1 Cor. 15 speaks of a bodily resurrection that happened to Jesus and will also happen to all believers who are resurrected. When Paul spoke of Jesus appearing to him in 1 Cor. 15.8, there is no hint that Jesus appeared to him only in his heart or mind, or only as a visionary light, but to his physical eyes and sight, as a real human being, truly and bodily raised from the dead.

3. The reference to "as to one abnormally born" is a reference to the fact of this quality of appearance. The appearances of Jesus had come to a stop because of the ascension, but Paul himself was granted this physical appearance as a sign of grace (1 Cor. 15.10). Paul admits to seeing Jesus in a different fashion than the disciples—it was not while Jesus was on the earth between resurrection and ascension. While visionary and spiritual experiences of Christ would continue, Paul's physical seeing of Christ would be the last of its type.

> Nor does he even give any evidence of the Risen Jesus on earth.

I disagree with this. In 1 Cor. 15.3-7, the list of witnesses is a clear indication that Paul doesn't suppose Jesus' resurrection to be a metaphor or merely a spiritual experience.

1. The variety of sightings, times, and places make it impossible to suppose Paul is denying any evidence of the risen Jesus on earth.
2. He speaks (1 Cor. 15.3-7) of actual evidence of physical presence, not of mere visions.
3. By all Jewish definitions of resurrection, especially the Palestinian tradition such as Paul cites here, Paul must mean a literal appearance.
4. Paul’s purpose in appealing to witnesses still alive (15.6) is to invite his readers to check his facts if they doubt his words. We may safely rule out the suggestion that the resurrection appearances were mass hallucinations, because such a mass hallucination of a demonstrably physical person is unknown in history and human experience.

> That your main reason for assuming the appearances were "physical" comes from the later gospels, not from Paul (the earliest and only firsthand source).

Therefore, based on the evidence given above, I cannot agree with this either. Paul's statements were written in about AD 55 and refer to a creed that was from the mid-30s, a mere 2-5 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. The Gospel of Mark was possibly (I think likely) written at about the same time (AD 55-60), and possibly the other Gospels followed soon thereafter (early to mid-60s). My main reason for subscribing to physical appearances of Jesus is because the weight of evidence from Paul and the Gospel writers was distinctly that of physical resurrection.

> That there actually is a scholarly consensus dating position when it comes to the gospels.

There is no such consensus. The ranges of dates differ by about 40 years on each of the Gospels. The "battle" over authorship continues, with some scholars claiming traditional authorship based on hard evidence and reasoning, and other scholars claiming other unknown authorship based on perceived internal clues and reasoning. Beyond the two major camps there is a small group of minimalists who put the Gospels even later. There is no scholarly consensus about these matters. I have read plenty of commentaries where in the introductions the authors give their case for authorship and dating.

1. Mark. One group of scholars put Mark before AD 60, based on Aramaic expressions, theology, controversies, and Papias's and Clement's testimonies. Another group puts Mark between 60-70 based on his emphasis of suffering (as a reference to Nero's persecution), and because of the testimonies of the Anti-Marcionite prologue and Irenaeus. Still another puts the writing of it in AD 70 because of the eschatological references. Therefore, no scholarly consensus.

2. Matthew. Conservative estimates place Matthew in the early 60s based on Ireneaus (who says it was written while Peter and Paul were still preaching in Rome); middle estimates are in the 80-90s, and minimalists put it as late as 110 (which is odd because Ignatius of Antioch quotes from Matthew before 110, as does Clement of Rome). Therefore, no scholarly consensus.

3. Luke. Conservative estimates place Luke in the early 60s because Acts doesn't mention the events of the middle 60s, such as Peter's death or the Neronic persecutions in Rome in the mid-60s. And again, Acts deals with issues particularly of concern prior to Jerusalem's fall in 70. Many expressions in Acts are early and primitive. It also seems that Luke/Acts should be dated prior to the writing of Paul's letters. There is no internal evidence that Luke was acquainted with Paul's writings. It is also possible that Paul quotes form Luke 10.7 in 1 Tim. 518, which was written in the mid-50s. Other scholars, as you noted, put Luke as late as 85-95. Therefore, no scholarly consensus.

4. John. A handful of scholars have argued for John in the 60s. There is even a small amount of tradition from antiquity claiming that John was martyred at an early date. Some scholars claim that all of the Gospels were in place by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Albright, Moule, Dodd, Robinson, and others contend that there may be "extremely little in the New Testament later than AD 70." Yet the traditional dating for the Gospel of John is in about AD 90. Your estimates have John between 90-110. Therefore, no scholarly consensus.

[gnostic]

It seems you haven't read anything I wrote, though you must have.

I've countered every single point you've made. You're just asserting the same thing over and over while ignoring the refutations.

1. Paul's intent in 1 Cor. 15.8 is to show that his seeing of Christ was not before the ascension,

There you go reading in the ascension again. This is not reported until Luke/Acts! You don't just get to read in something from a later source when the earliest sources - Paul, Mark, or Matthew nowhere corroborate it! Paul makes no distinction between pre and post ascension appearances nor does he indicate a time period where the Risen Jesus was on earth before ascending to heaven!

and therefore qualitatively different from the "seeing" experienced by the disciples.

You've failed to meet your burden for claiming that the appearances were "qualitatively different." Paul does not indicate any type of experience or "seeing" other than visions and revelations. You have yet to provide a passage which indicates otherwise. But let's assume for the sake of argument that Paul was trying to make a distinction in the apperances. How do you know the "qualitative difference" wasn't just a difference in spiritual encounters? James, for instance, could have had a vision of Jesus in a dream. Peter could have had a vision of Jesus while fishing. The Twelve could have had a spiritual experience while praying together, etc.

yet he still claimed to have physically seen the Lord (not by hallucination, visionary mist, or spiritual experience).

Paul says he had an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16. Luke has Paul say he had a "heavenly vision" involving a bright light and a voice where no actually person was "seen." So are both Paul and Acts wrong? You're being dishonest by trying to claim the appearance to Paul was not a vision or spiritual experience. That's exactly what the New Testament says it was! That's also the standard orthodox interpretation! Paul had a VISION of Jesus on the Damascus Road! Didn't they teach you that in Sunday school?

a. In 1 Cor. 9.1 Paul intends us to understand he saw Christ on a par with normal human seeing.

Paul "sees" Jesus in a vision though so this obviously was not "normal human seeing." I've already shown, and you admitted, that the verb commonly meant spiritual or metaphorical "seeing."

b. His "last of all" in 1 Cor. 15.8 makes it clear that his seeing of Christ was the last of a sequence that came to end, while vision and spiritual experiences would continue.

Paul uses the same verb ὤφθη for his "vision" as well as all the "appearances" to the others in the same list. It follows that if Paul can use ὤφθη for his own vision then he can use the same for other people's visions. As for visions and spiritual experiences, Paul never indicates anything otherwise. You're assuming something more "physical" when it's just not there!

c. 1 Cor. 15.1-11 as a whole speaks clearly of public seeing for which there is evidence in the form of witnesses who saw something and canoe interrogated. Paul puts his experience in that category.

The verb ὤφθη can mean to just "spiritually experience the presence of something/someone" so this type of experience doesn't necessarily rely on sensory perception. So when Paul says Jesus "appeared" to the 500 or the Twelve he could just be talking about a mass shared spiritual experience like people have today in church who pray, sing, or speak in tongues together.

d. The rest of chapter 15 speaks of bodily resurrection.

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44 and 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are heavenly/spiritual and those that are earthly/natural. He says Jesus "became a spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45. "Spiritual bodies" in heaven that are experienced through visions aren't the same thing as physically raised corpses on earth. Paul gives no evidence for the latter.

2. Though Christ's appearance to Paul was accompanied by a bright light (Acts 9, 22, 26), Jesus' body is not described as luminous.

The whole encounter is described as a "vision" and no "body" was actually seen - Acts 9:7. Paul refers to Jesus' "glorious body" in Phil. 3:21 and compares the resurrected body to stars in 1 Cor 15:40-41.

Paul's writing in 1 Cor. 15 speaks of a bodily resurrection that happened to Jesus and will also happen to all believers who are resurrected.

Paul never says or describes physical corpses being raised from graves.

When Paul spoke of Jesus appearing to him in 1 Cor. 15.8, there is no hint that Jesus appeared to him only in his heart or mind, or only as a visionary light, but to his physical eyes and sight, as a real human being, truly and bodily raised from the dead.

No hint? Let's see...

1. The appearances to Paul was a vision - check.
2. He uses the verb ὤφθη to describe this vision which had the connotation of purely spiritual encounters - check.
3. He gives no evidence of experiencing Christ in a way other than a "vision" or a "revelation" - check.
4. He talks about Jesus being exalted straight to heaven without mention of an intermediate period on earth which would rule out any chance for physical encounters - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23, 2.6-7, 4.7-10; Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9 - check.

Looks to me like ALL the evidence says this was some sort of spiritual encounter. Hmmm...

3. The reference to "as to one abnormally born" is a reference to the fact of this quality of appearance.

Wrong. This as been decisively refuted.

"The remark that Jesus appeared "last of all" is not evidence that he distinguished the type of appearance he was granted from those of Peter and the twelve. On the contrary, it marks his experience as the last in a series of the same type of experiences. The remark that Jesus appeared to him "as to one prematurely born" (v. 8) does not imply that the nature of the appearance was any different. It was Paul who was different - he was not even a disciple yet. This interpretation is supported by the remark in the following verse that he was persecuting the church of God (i.e. even at the time that Jesus appeared to him)." - Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel, pg. 124.

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

The appearances of Jesus had come to a stop because of the ascension,

Still reading in the ascension that Paul nowhere mentions....

Paul admits to seeing Jesus in a different fashion than the disciples—it was not while Jesus was on the earth between resurrection and ascension.

Where does he "admit to seeing Jesus in a different fashion than the disciples?" Where is this made explicitly clear?

1. The variety of sightings, times, and places make it impossible to suppose Paul is denying any evidence of the risen Jesus on earth.

No they don't. Paul and the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was in heaven and he could spiritually appear from there any time he wanted to. Unfortunately, Paul gives no evidence for any physical encounters on earth. If he did, then you'd be citing them instead of making an unsupported assertion.

2. He speaks (1 Cor. 15.3-7) of actual evidence of physical presence, not of mere visions.

He uses ὤφθη for his vision and for the other "appearances" so you can't claim that they weren't mere visions when ὤφθη can mean that.

3. By all Jewish definitions of resurrection, especially the Palestinian tradition such as Paul cites here, Paul must mean a literal appearance.

Wow, why are you repeating yourself and ignoring what I've already said? First, the "appearance" to Paul WAS A VISION! Second, there was no consensus view in regards to resurrection in Second Temple Judaism. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. There are some sources which exclude the resurrection of the body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12. Here, read about the sources: https://books.google.com/books?id=z-VcB ... &q&f=false

4. Paul’s purpose in appealing to witnesses still alive (15.6) is to invite his readers to check his facts if they doubt his words. We may safely rule out the suggestion that the resurrection appearances were mass hallucinations, because such a mass hallucination of a demonstrably physical person is unknown in history and human experience.

And exactly how were the Corinthians, being thousands of miles away, supposed to fact check people in and around Jerusalem? And if they did question them, how do you know they wouldn't have just said they all "saw" Jesus in a vision or a mass shared spiritual encounter during worship/church?

Therefore, based on the evidence given above, I cannot agree with this either. Paul's statements were written in about AD 55 and refer to a creed that was from the mid-30s, a mere 2-5 years after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Which, so far, has zero evidence for anything physical. Try harder.

My main reason for subscribing to physical appearances of Jesus is because the weight of evidence from Paul and the Gospel writers was distinctly that of physical resurrection.

You've been unable to provide any evidence from Paul and the gospel resurrection reports grow more legendary over time. This is demonstrable.

There is no such consensus.

"The consensus of scholarly opinion is that Mark’s gospel was composed either in the mid-60s or shortly after 70 CE, in Rome or in Syria." - James Keith Elliott http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 1-0076.xml

"There seems to be a general consensus among recent interpreters of Mark that the gospel was composed sometime between 65 and 75 CE." Adam Winn https://books.google.com/books?id=XCPQ1 ... &q&f=false

"This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Both used a written form of the Gospel of Mark as source material for their own narratives." https://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroa ... spels.html

Even evangelicals realize this: "The consensus dating of the Gospels among academic scholars holds that Mark was written around AD 70, Matthew and Luke around AD 80-85, and John around AD 90-95." - Robert J. Hutchinson https://books.google.com/books?id=yVhxD ... &q&f=false

YOU ARE WRONG.