I wonder how the literalists/inerrantists reconcile the very differemt accounts of Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances? These are set forth below in chronological order (i.e., 1 Corinthians is the earliest, the Gospel of John the latest). I’m not talking about who went to the tomb, but those to whom Jesus actually appeared.
1 Corinthians 15
Peter
The Twelve
More than 500 “brothers and sisters”
James
All “the apostles”
Significantly, even though 1 Corinthians was written long before any of the Gospels, in 53-54 AD, this is the only mention of an appearance to 500+.
Gospel of Mark Earliest manuscripts: Mark 16:1-5
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome find an empty tomb; no appearance by Jesus is described.
Later addition: Mark 16:9-20
Mary Magdalene
Two unnamed disciples, in “a different form,” while they are walking in the country
The Eleven as they were eating in Jerusalem
Jesus is immediately “taken up into heaven”
Gospel of Matthew (who clearly had Mark as a source) Matthew 28
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
The eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee
No Ascension is described; gospel ends on mountain in Galilee
Gospel of Luke (who clearly had Mark as a source) Luke 24
Two unnamed disciples on the way to Emmaus, but they are “kept” from recognizing him
The Eleven and those with them in Jerusalem
Ascension occurs when he leads them to the “vicinity of Bethany”
Gospel of John John 20-21
Mary Magdalene
The disciples, but not Thomas, in a room in Jerusalem with door locked
The disciples, including Thomas, in a room in Jerusalem with door locked
I happen to have just started reading ZEALOT, the acclaimed “biography” of Jesus by Reza Aslan. Raised a Muslim, he become a gung-ho Christian proselytizer. The scales fell from his eyes when (as he says in the introduction) he became a scholar and realized that the literalist/inerrantist view is “patently and irrefutably false” and that “the Bible is replete with the most blatant and obvious errors and contradictions.” He describes himself today as far more a follower of Jesusb than he ever was as a gung-ho proselytizer.
Nice try - well, not really. The issue is not whether the Resurrection can be defended. The point is, Paul and the Gospel writers are hopelessly in conflict on the facts. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The facts don’t change just because five authors are theoretically addressing “different audiences.” As per usual when literalists/fundamentalists are faced with inconvenient facts, you attempt to shift the focus to an entirely different discussion.
Of course it can be defended. Read this: Why We Should Expect Witnesses to Disagree | Cold Case Christianity. By the way, J. Warner Wallace became a Christian because of his investigation; he couldn’t refute the facts. He was a professional Cold-Case Homicide detective who had been a devout atheist for 35+ years. Click the link.
Would you talk to the president the same way you would talk to me? Be honest.
I’m not shifting the focus; I’m answering your question. The facts aren’t inconvenient at all. I love facts. I gave you the facts and you ran away from it. Who’s shifting the focus from what?
That’s how the saying goes all right. So why are you passing off your own unsupported opinions as facts? I have more support than you do. Just saying.
Do you perhaps have reading comprehension problems? I fully agree the Resurrection can be defended. I didn’t say it couldn’t. That is NOT the subject of this thread.
I have studied EVERYTHING written on the Resurrection, from N. T. Wright’s 1000-page tome to everything Habermas, Licona, Craig and their ilk have written - even lightweight J. Warner Wallace, with whom I am extremely familiar. Don’t patronize me with Christian newbie Cold Case twaddle.
If Kamala is elected, quite possibly I will.
For a Literalist Bible Guy, the FACTS are those set forth in the NT. Insofar as the Resurrection appearances of Jesus are concerned, the FACTS are those set forth in my original post. Those FACTS are hopelessly in conflict. This hopeless conflict may or may not be a problem for the plausibility of the Resurrection, but this is a second-level concern. The hopeless conflict is a first-level problem, however, for a literalist reading of the NT, which is the point of this thread.
The FACTS set forth in my original post, hopelessly in conflict as they may be, are all straight out of the NT and are not my opinions. What is it that you think you “have more support” for? You have not even addressed the subject I raised. Again, it appears to me that you either intentionally miss the point of the threads to which you respond or may have reading comprehension issues.
If you don’t think the Resurrection appearances described in 1 Corinthians and the four Gospels are in conflict, let’s hear your harmonization. If you want a broader thread about the plausibility of the Resurrection, start one.
Maybe you have a communication problem like I have. I responded to what you wrote:
So, I gave you my answer, but interpreted it as me trying to defend the Resurrection when I wasn’t trying to do that. When I said
I wasn’t saying that you said it couldn’t be defended; I was saying that I agreed that it could be defended and I gave you Wallace’s bio. I also responded to your statement
by giving you a link; a link you haven’t clicked on yet. I’m not trying to start an argument sir, you are.
Just click the link already! If you don’t we’ll just keep moving in circles.
I join @Historyprof in bidding you a Blocked adieu.
Posting irrelevant links to Mr. Cold Case is not a response. I have clicked on all of your links, which are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I am a lawyer. I have been one since 1979. I know a bit about eyewitness testimony.
We are not talking here about eyewitness testimony. We are talking about NT accounts written from 20 years after the events they describe (in the case of 1 Corinthians) to 60 or more years thereafter (in the case of John). Some of those accounts may have an original basis in eyewitness testimony, but that is not the issue.
The issue is, they are all set forth as facts in the NT and those ostensible facts are hopelessly in conflict. The issue is that this hopeless conflict is “just a bit” of a problem for someone with a literalist/inerrantist view of the Bible.
In the latest article you linked, which doesn’t address the Resurrection at all, Wallace says he regards the Gospel accounts as “inerrant” but “doesn’t need this standard” to “trust” them as “reliable.” Fine, if someone’s standard is simply that the NT documents “reliably” indicate the Resurrection and Ascension occurred, this is far different from saying they literally and inerrantly describe what occurred. Wallace’s article is an admission that many NT accounts are hopelessly in conflict.
(FYI, Wallace converted to Christianity at age 35, a decade before he became a cold case detective in 2006. He was not a “devout atheist for 35+ years.” He has been criticized as being deceptive about his actual background. Some of his work is wildly out of synch with the best NT scholarship. For example, he dates Luke to pre-62, by which time Paul was dead, because “Paul” references Luke in 1 Timothy. Scholars agree, for multiple reasons, that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul at all and was in fact written in 110-130 AD. Love him or hate him, Wallace is just a lightweight apologist. He is preaching to the believer choir, not trying to convince a neutral jury.)
Apparently we have no literalists/inerrantists willing to wade into this topic - perhaps they’re happy with literal, inerrant contradictions! - but the curious nature of the appearance to Paul was mentioned in some of my recent reading.
The only detailed description is in Acts. Alas, Acts is internally contradictory. In Acts 9, Paul sees an intense light and hears a voice saying “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” His companions see nothing but hear “a sound.” In Acts 22, Paul’s companions see the light but hear no voice. Acts was, of course, written after Paul was dead.
In Paul’s own letters, notably 1 Corinthians, he gives no details at all. He merely says Jesus “appeared to me.” He makes clear this was a visionary experience and that, in fact, his entire message was mystically revealed to him by Jesus. In fact, Paul never saw or heard the earthly Jesus.
My recent reading emphasizes that Paul’s experience was entirely visionary, yet he equates it with the other Resurrection appearances such as those to James and Peter, whom he had met (and indeed, he seems to regard his as own experience as superior). This begs the question whether, as some scholars like John Dominic Crossan suggest, ALL the Resurrection appearances of Jesus may have been visionary. Here is a blog post by one scholar who addresses this possibility: What Did Paul Claim to Have Seen? “Last of All He Appeared Also to Me” – TaborBlog
Thus, we have to add this into the mix: Not only do the four gospel accounts not mesh, but Paul’s experience was fundamentally different from what the gospels describe. The Resurrection is a matter of faith, but attempts to make sense of it historically are fraught with problems right within the pages of the NT.
If you don’t we’ll just keep moving in circles.