Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

BTW, this is the earliest account of the ressurection:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15)
The majority of scholars who comment think that Paul probably received this information about three years after his conversion, which probably occurred from one to four years after the crucifixion.

Some of this, but probably not all of it, was a statement of faith. People would hardly include "most of the 500 have died" in a statement of faith, and certainly not the phrase "appeared to me". But the base of this quote probably forms the core of early Christian belief:

1. that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
2. that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and
3. that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.​

First notice the phrase "according to the scriptures." This is the format used in ancient times to quote people. "Blah blah happened, according to Philo and yada yada yada happened, according to Josephus". In those days many were searching the scriptures to find things that their imaginations could link to Jesus. The early Christians appear to have done the same, and according to this statement, determined that the scriptures teach Christ would die for our sins, and the scriptures teach he would rise. This seems to be more of a theological interpretation of scripture, not a statement of history. And the third point was apparently a strong early statement that the apostles had seen this Christ after he rose. Nothing is said about this Jesus even being historical. Nothing is said about his disciples seeing him before he died. It's just a statement about theological interpretations, followed by a claim that the disciples saw the risen Christ.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, this is refuted with Phillipians 3:21 as I already explained he didn't say a glorious spirit, he said glorious body transformed from our lowly bodies. If it was a spiritual vision he would have said our lowly spirit will transformed into a glorious spirit. Also, he said they would be transformed not eliminated.

Huh? Nowhere does Acts say anything about Paul seeing a body.

Paul in his writings does not discuss the story much, but it can be argued 2 Cor 12:2-4 is the story of his vision. Its all a vision of heaven, not much to do with a body.

No, again I refuted this in my last post, if it was a vision his traveling companions would have not heard the voices or seen the great light, or fallen down like Paul did.

According to Acts 22:9, his companions did not hear a voice. All they saw was a light. Not much there to verify a physical Jesus resurrected on earth.

And as I said, I don't trust Acts as history.

The earliest oral Pre-Pauline tradition is on record as stated in I Corinthians 15 within 10 years of Jesus death says that He was buried and seen by the disciples all at one time. This would be impossible if it was subjective vision.

No, it does not say Jesus was buried and rose. It says the scriptures talk of a Christ who died and rose. Paul is speaking of an interpretation of theology, not a statement of historical fact. He does not even say his Christ was recently on earth.

And how would just having a vision cause so many to lay down there lives, they would be much more likely to risk death if they had actually seen someone who had risen from the dead rather than just a subjective vision.

How many early Christians layed down their lives? We have very little evidence this was happening much in early Christian history. The Bible, I think only refers to two martyrs, James and Stephen. Neither is said to have been killed for believing in a resurrection.

But in his statements just before he mentioned their deaths he talks about how they were persecuted physically, so that plainly implies that their deaths were most likely due to that persecution. And see above about how much more fearless they would be if they saw Christ alive after His death.

Many people die for many things. It does not require a resurrection to make people willing to die.

The Romans likely would not pursue someone that just stirred up a small riot over some obscure religious point. Most Roman leaders were not religious and would consider that a waste of resources for such a minor thing.

But you think they killed Jesus, yes? If he was a condemned man who escaped Roman justice and was still alive, people would not be openly proclaiming that this Jesus that the Romans crucified survived and is still alive. The Romans would have been all over that. But in Acts the Romans don't seem to care.

 

[Ken Rank]

Actually Acts 22 said those around him heard no voice.

We don't know if the author of Acts was making this story up. Even if he is reporting what the people say they saw, the folks with Paul only saw a light, and that isn't saying much. Acts says that Paul heard a voice, but not that he actually saw Jesus.

Suppose you are coming home from the bar and you see a bright light and hear a voice claiming to be Abraham Lincoln. Surely the most likely explanation is that you are imagining this, or that somebody set this up. Perhaps if you are religious you think it might be the spirit of Lincoln speaking to you from heaven. But you would hardly find this convincing evidence that Abraham Lincoln had risen from the dead. This is more consistent with a spirit speaking from heaven than a body that came out of the grave.

Acts 9:7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.

What I think happened is Acts 9:7 is the account.... the latter recollection is Paul under duress. I know some think that messes with the inspiration... but I don't have an issue with an inspired author being "human" in his writings. We tend to pedestalize these guys (not saying you do) and, well... just read Genesis and the accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and throw David in for good measure) and we come away realizing how human these guys, and we... are.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, see above, it was not a vision. I Cor 15 reports appearances to groups, hallucinations and visions are subjective and only occur to individuals, so they could not have been visions.

dm: We have only Paul's word that many saw it. We have no credible witnesses that say they saw the bodily resurrected Jesus.

It is not Pauls word, it is an ancient extrabiblical Pre-Pauline hymn/creed orally transmitted by the earliest Christians less than 10 years of Jesus death. This is confirmed by the text and context especially obvious in the original greek. This has been confirmed by many scholars even non-Christian scholars.

ed: First century jews would not make up a story where women were first to see Christ alive, this is evidence for authenticity. The men would have made sure that they were the primary sources of truth about Christ.

dm: The Jews were already written in the story by Mark, who makes no attempt to claim a physical resurrection. Others take up the story from that point.

What Jews? Mark was Jewish. What else does an empty tomb mean? An empty tomb would be irrelevant to a spiritual resurrection. You are not making any sense now.

 

[Anguspure]

Nothing is said about this Jesus even being historical. Nothing is said about his disciples seeing him before he died. It's just a statement about theological interpretations, followed by a claim that the disciples saw the risen Christ.

How about this, in the same letter, a response to your objection, it seems Paul was faimliar with this sort of argument, how about that:

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep....

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”

Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is not Pauls word, it is an ancient extrabiblical Pre-Pauline hymn/creed orally transmitted by the earliest Christians less than 10 years of Jesus death. This is confirmed by the text and context especially obvious in the original greek. This has been confirmed by many scholars even non-Christian scholars.



What Jews? Mark was Jewish. What else does an empty tomb mean? An empty tomb would be irrelevant to a spiritual resurrection. You are not making any sense now.

Sorry, I meant the women, not the Jews, were already written into the story by Mark. I have corrected my previous post. What I am saying is that the original Mark (ending at 16:8) did not declare the women to be eyewitnesses to the actual risen Jesus. However, since they were written by Mark as being the first there, it would be natural for later writers who wanted to claim there were sightings of a risen Jesus to include them in their story.

 

[Deadworm]

The best path for connecting Jesus' resurrection to eyewitness testimony is Paul's list of resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. This text links the resurrection to the burial of Jesus' corpse and thereby implies a bodily resurrection. Paul receives and confirms this list from the apostles in his prior two visits to the Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:18-2:10). He specifically mentions his interaction with Peter, John, and Jesus' brother, James. In Paul's list, the first appearance to Peter is independently confirmed by Luke (24:cc). A second appearance to the 12 is confirmed by the second reported appearances in Matthew, Luke, and John. But the most evidentially impressive listing is the private appearance to Jesus' brother James. Remember, Paul has been able to confirm this appearance in a direct interaction with James in Jerusalem; and James's resurrections appearance is essential for explaining the dramatic conversion of all of Jesus brothers, who thought Jesus was deluded during his public ministry (John 7:5; Mark 3:19-21, 31-35; 6:4). Yet these same brothers have joined the 120 believers who are praying in the Upper Room for 10 days in the lead-up to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14). Similarly evidential is Paul's own resurrection appearance on the Damascus road, to which he twice alludes and which is dramatically described by his travel companion, Luke, in the Book of Acts. Paul's appearance is evidential because it transforms him from ardent persecutor to staunch defender of Jesus and His Gospel.

 

[ChetSinger]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

Christianity initially spread by word of mouth, not through the dissemination of texts. The texts came later.

So one question I've pondered is this: is there any evidence that the earliest Christians, say from the 30's and 40's, believed differently regarding the resurrection of Christ than later ones?

The answer is, I'm unaware of any. So as far as I can tell, the earliest Christians believed nothing differently regarding Christ's resurrection than later ones.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, this is refuted with Phillipians 3:21 as I already explained he didn't say a glorious spirit, he said glorious body transformed from our lowly bodies. If it was a spiritual vision he would have said our lowly spirit will transformed into a glorious spirit. Also, he said they would be transformed not eliminated.

dm: Huh? Nowhere does Acts say anything about Paul seeing a body.

Who said anything about Acts? I am referring to his actual letter where he DOES mention Christ's resurrected body and NOTHING about a resurrected spirit.

dm: Paul in his writings does not discuss the story much, but it can be argued 2 Cor 12:2-4 is the story of his vision. Its all a vision of heaven, not much to do with a body.

No, most scholars believe that that is a different event. In Phillipians as demonstrated above he confirms that he believed that Jesus has a resurrected body not any spirit.

dm: Acts 22:9, his companions did not hear a voice. All they saw was a light. Not much there to verify a physical Jesus resurrected on earth.

Actually the greek word for voice can also mean noise. They heard a noise but did not understand what it was saying so Paul when he recounted the event in chapter 22 he said that they didn't hear a speaking voice. But even if they just saw the same light that Paul did, refutes that it was a subjective vision.

To be continued....

 

[Hawkins]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

In your opinion, how many direct witnesses will write about it. And how many written documents (in ancient scrolls) will remain till today.

The Bible conveys because it is convey through a religion. The difference a religion can make is that everyone will keep a Bible, but only few will keep a history book.

Most witnesses are poor people. Rich people don't care the death of a rumoured messiah, there are a lot of claimed prophets and messiahs anyway. Poor people don't have the right or money to publish anything under the ruling of Roman empire. Even Mark is said to be lacking the money for the gospel of Mark to be fully published in Rome. It is said that it is thus the shortest gospel of the 4.

In the end, only those chosen by God will have the enthusiasm to convey such a message against all odds. Only by God's will that such a document conveyed till today with supporting ancient manuscripts.

Show us a document which is said to be written before AD 100, and provide your ancient manuscript support! And you can't, as it's extremely rare! Humans don't generally have the capability to keep the originals.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: And how would just having a vision cause so many to lay down there lives, they would be much more likely to risk death if they had actually seen someone who had risen from the dead rather than just a subjective vision.

dm: How many early Christians layed down their lives? We have very little evidence this was happening much in early Christian history. The Bible, I think only refers to two martyrs, James and Stephen. Neither is said to have been killed for believing in a resurrection.

The larger numbers occurred in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but we have extrabiblical evidence for the deaths of some of the early disciples apostles of the first cent. Such as Clement's letters, Polycarp's writings, and Ignatius' writings where he actually said the same I did above about how they were more willing to risk their lives because of having seen the risen Christ.

ed: But in his statements just before he mentioned their deaths he talks about how they were persecuted physically, so that plainly implies that their deaths were most likely due to that persecution. And see above about how much more fearless they would be if they saw Christ alive after His death.

dm: Many people die for many things. It does not require a resurrection to make people willing to die.

True, but the probability would increase exponentially, if they did see someone resurrected whom they greatly admired.

ed: The Romans likely would not pursue someone that just stirred up a small riot over some obscure religious point. Most Roman leaders were not religious and would consider that a waste of resources for such a minor thing.

dm: But you think they killed Jesus, yes? If he was a condemned man who escaped Roman justice and was still alive, people would not be openly proclaiming that this Jesus that the Romans crucified survived and is still alive. The Romans would have been all over that. But in Acts the Romans don't seem to care.

Oh, I thought you were referring to Paul not Jesus. In the case of Jesus, most of the Roman leaders that were present at the crucifixion were not religious just like you as I stated above and would not have believed that Jesus was alive after such a horrific and confirmed death. They would just think it was some primitive superstition by primitive people like the jews.

 

[SkyWriting]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

All of the followers who died as a result of preaching the resurrection. 10 or 11 of them I think.

 

[HitchSlap]

All of the followers who died as a result of preaching the resurrection. 10 or 11 of them I think.

Where did you get this information from?

 

[SkyWriting]

Where did you get this information from?

Some is solid, some not.
How do we know 10 of the disciples were martyred?
The Martyrdom of the Apostles

 

[Ed1wolf]

Sorry, I meant the women, not the Jews, were already written into the story by Mark. I have corrected my previous post. What I am saying is that the original Mark (ending at 16:8) did not declare the women to be eyewitnesses to the actual risen Jesus. However, since they were written by Mark as being the first there, it would be natural for later writers who wanted to claim there were sightings of a risen Jesus to include them in their story.

You are not making any sense. Why even mention an empty tomb if the resurrection was spiritual and not physical? How would it be natural for first century jews to mention women as the first to see Jesus when they were not considered reliable witnesses at the time? Again, you are not making any sense.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is not Pauls word, it is an ancient extrabiblical Pre-Pauline hymn/creed orally transmitted by the earliest Christians less than 10 years of Jesus death. This is confirmed by the text and context especially obvious in the original greek. This has been confirmed by many scholars even non-Christian scholars.

Oh, please, I Corinthians 15 are Paul's words. I have agreed with you that three points Paul made there (the OT scriptures say Christ died;the OT scriptures say he rose; the 12 saw him) were the basic tenants of the faith that could well have been memorized as a creed. But the claims of Paul that 500 saw, that many of them are now dead, and that "I" saw were most likely not part of a creed. So we have one man saying 500 saw, not 500 witnesses. And Paul implies that the "seeing" they did was the same as the "seeing" he did, which likely did not involve a physical body. Or maybe Paul just made this up. We don't know.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How about this, in the same letter, a response to your objection, it seems Paul was faimliar with this sort of argument, how about that:

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Don't stop there. How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come? Fortunately Paul anticipated my questions. Read on, starting at I Cor 15:35

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, andanother of birds.
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth fromanother star in glory.
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:35-43​

So he make it very clear that the resurrection body he is talking about is something very different from a physical body. He speaks of a new body coming up, just like when a seed is planted and a new plant springs up. Likewise Paul sees a body being planted, and a spiritual body coming up. This is about spiritual resurrection, not physical resurrection.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So one question I've pondered is this: is there any evidence that the earliest Christians, say from the 30's and 40's, believed differently regarding the resurrection of Christ than later ones?

The answer is, I'm unaware of any. So as far as I can tell, the earliest Christians believed nothing differently regarding Christ's resurrection than later ones.

Absolutely. The epistles came first. The gospels and Acts do not come until later, probably after 70 AD. The epistles never mention anybody seeing a physical body of a resurrected Jesus. It is all a spirit Jesus.

Later we have Mark implying the body was missing, and the gospels declaring a physical Jesus seen after death.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who said anything about Acts? I am referring to his actual letter where he DOES mention Christ's resurrected body and NOTHING about a resurrected spirit.

Oh please show me where Paul speaks of Jesus having a physical body. That is nowhere in Paul's writings. I Cor 15 even specifically says the spiritual body is not made of flesh and blood, but is something very different. Furthermore, Paul tells us what he means by the body of Christ. He says the church is the body of Christ. So he is talking about a spiritual being in heaven with a body that consists of the church.

No, most scholars believe that that is a different event. In Phillipians as demonstrated above he confirms that he believed that Jesus has a resurrected body not any spirit.

Phillippians speaks of a body, yes, but it never describes it as a physical body. He never says it is anything different from how he described the body in I and II Corinthians.

In I Cor Paul says briefly that he saw Jesus, but gives no details. I think he is probably referring to the event in II Cor 12. Nowhere in his letters does he mention seeing a physical Jesus. Nowhere in his letters does he describe anything like Acts says he saw.

Actually the greek word for voice can also mean noise. They heard a noise but did not understand what it was saying so Paul when he recounted the event in chapter 22 he said that they didn't hear a speaking voice. But even if they just saw the same light that Paul did, refutes that it was a subjective vision.

Acts 9 says the men with him heard the voice. Acts 22 says they didn't hear the voice. Both use the same Greek word for "voice". So we have a contradiction here, but we digress.

The story of Paul's conversion is found only in Acts. Paul nowhere talks about it in his letters (unless you include that one small phrase in I cor 15).

So we really don't know what Paul claimed he saw when he said he saw Jesus. If he is referring to the story in 2 Cor, then he saw a vision. If not, then he does not ever get into specifics, but the rest of I Cor make it clear it was not a physical body he saw.

And if we trust Acts (I don't) Some people saw a bright light and one of them (Paul) says he heard a voice. Nobody says they saw a body. That hardly qualifies as proof of a resurrection.

Suppose someone tells you they saw a bright light and a voice saying, "I am Abraham Lincoln". You probably expect the people were mistaken, somebody was playing a trick on them, or perhaps that the spirit of Abraham Lincoln was calling from heaven. You would hardly accept this as proof that the body of Abraham Lincoln had come out of the grave and Abraham Lincoln was now walking around. That is the point. Even if Acts is true, it doesn't validate a bodily resurrection.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In your opinion, how many direct witnesses will write about it. And how many written documents (in ancient scrolls) will remain till today.

We don't need the originals. The copies will do.

We have a number of Christian documents in which the original was most likely written before 50 AD (the writings of Paul, etc.) , but in none of these does it mention anybody seeing a physical body of the risen Jesus on earth.