1 Corinthians 15:6 and the Definition of 'Eyewitness'

[cvanwey]

I've spoken to many whom state the Bible provides eyewitness attestation from many. One of the 'go-to' verses seems to be as such referenced below:

1 Corinthians 15:6 New King James Version (NKJV)
'6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have a]">[a]fallen asleep.'

Now I ask you honestly... Is this an example of 500 actual eyewitnesses, or instead an example of hearsay?

eyewitness - 'a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it' - Oxford Dictionary

hearsay - 'Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour. The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.' - Oxford Dictionary

Regardless of actual true circumstances, the stated '500+' was never confirmed, corroborated, verified, cross referenced back, individually deposed, etc...

For there to be conformation of 500+ witnesses, deposition would need to be provided from each individual stated person, equaling 500+ witnesses. There exists no formal documentation...

Thank you in advance for any/all responses!

 

[Dirk1540]

I've spoken to many whom state the Bible provides eyewitness attestation from many. One of the 'go-to' verses seems to be as such referenced below:

1 Corinthians 15:6 New King James Version (NKJV)
'6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have a]">[a]fallen asleep.'

Now I ask you honestly... Is this an example of 500 actual eyewitnesses, or instead an example of hearsay?

eyewitness - 'a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it' - Oxford Dictionary

hearsay - 'Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour. The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.' - Oxford Dictionary

Regardless of actual true circumstances, the stated '500+' was never confirmed, corroborated, verified, cross referenced back, individually deposed, etc...

For there to be conformation of 500+ witnesses, deposition would need to be provided from each individual stated person, equaling 500+ witnesses. There exists no formal documentation...

Thank you in advance for any/all responses!

I believe that although the '500 witnesses' will fall short of the expectation you would have of a modern day example, it still has more going for it than it might seem like. Of all the New Testament writers Paul would be the preferred author to say this because he is the earliest. The implication being "Most of them are still alive till this day (an implied go ask them/go see)."

Now again, TODAY this would be way better because of ease of travel, however, again, not AS bad as you might think because this was at least the Pax Romana (37 BC - 180 AD, quite possibly the most favorable time & place in the ancient world to travel around...the Mediterranean Sea didn't hurt either). In other words it's not exactly wise to throw out bluffs about 500 witnesses, and also that his statement that most are still alive must have been said in the context of go ahead and look if you don't believe me. The New Testament (IMO) if false, has a recurring habit of making public appeals to knowledge, all of which are nice ways to shoot yourself in the foot if those appeals are false.

It's also not impossible that this appearance could have been the appearance narrated in Matthew 28:16-17. It is interesting that in all of the resurrection appearances narrated in the gospels this is the only one that is by appointment. An appearance like 500 would have had to take place out doors. And it was in Galilee where thousands of people used to gather on hillsides to hear Jesus preach. Also, in this Matthew account it says "When they saw him they worshiped but some doubted." Hmm...who doubted? Sounds like a large group to me!! Food for thought.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe that although the '500 witnesses' will fall short of the expectation you would have of a modern day example, it still has more going for it than it might seem like. Of all the New Testament writers Paul would be the preferred author to say this because he is the earliest. The implication being "Most of them are still alive till this day (an implied go ask them/go see)."

Now again, TODAY this would be way better because of ease of travel, however, again, not AS bad as you might think because this was at least the Pax Romana (37 BC - 180 AD, quite possibly the most favorable time & place in the ancient world to travel around...the Mediterranean Sea didn't hurt either). In other words it's not exactly wise to throw out bluffs about 500 witnesses, and also that his statement that most are still alive must have been said in the context of go ahead and look if you don't believe me. The New Testament (IMO) if false, has a recurring habit of making public appeals to knowledge, all of which are nice ways to shoot yourself in the foot if those appeals are false.

It's also not impossible that this appearance could have been the appearance narrated in Matthew 28:16-17. It is interesting that in all of the resurrection appearances narrated in the gospels this is the only one that is by appointment. An appearance like 500 would have had to take place out doors. And it was in Galilee where thousands of people used to gather on hillsides to hear Jesus preach. Also, in this Matthew account it says "When they saw him they worshiped but some doubted." Hmm...who doubted? Sounds like a large group to me!! Food for thought.

I'm afraid my standards for proof would have to be 'very low' to accept such a provided conclusion.

1. Your notion of 'go ask them' does not apply. Who's 'them'? The Bible does not even list the 500 individuals by name. Nor does much of any story really develop regarding such a large claim. It's just kind of matter-o-fact. How might one know which living representatives to even ask? Where they all over seas now? How would anyone know? Was there an actual list of witnesses?

2. I'm sorry, but it appears a very desperate 'stretch' to link Matthew 28:16-17 to 1 Corinthians 15:6 in any viable way. Most stuff took place outside.

3. Paul authored 13 of the 27 NT books 'apparently', all initially based upon a vision he claimed to receive without verification. It could be said, Paul is 'half' the reason Christianity even exists. Food for thought

4. Furthermore, 'if' most live 'far' away, wouldn't it be even easier to claim the 'witnesses' are too far away to attest such a sighting? But again, there's no list, so how would you even know that one way or another?

5. I find it peculiar that none of these 500 others wrote anything about it? I would assume such an occurrence would be the most important thing ever witnessed. I doubt all 500 were illiterate. But even if they were, would have obtained a ghost writer or something....

6. Stories can be written very quickly, even if only a 'short' time after, which may be fabricated, partially true, completely false, etc... (I trust you do not need me to provide examples of such)

 

[Chinchilla]

I've spoken to many whom state the Bible provides eyewitness attestation from many. One of the 'go-to' verses seems to be as such referenced below:

1 Corinthians 15:6 New King James Version (NKJV)
'6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have a]">[a]fallen asleep.'

Now I ask you honestly... Is this an example of 500 actual eyewitnesses, or instead an example of hearsay?

eyewitness - 'a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it' - Oxford Dictionary

hearsay - 'Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour. The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.' - Oxford Dictionary

Regardless of actual true circumstances, the stated '500+' was never confirmed, corroborated, verified, cross referenced back, individually deposed, etc...

For there to be conformation of 500+ witnesses, deposition would need to be provided from each individual stated person, equaling 500+ witnesses. There exists no formal documentation...

Thank you in advance for any/all responses!

People could not write these days , eyewitness or a witness would only need to swear on God that he is telling truth and on base of two witnesses somebody could be stoned to death for example .

It worked well because God would punish the ones who did evil in the end anyways . Israel had almost no prisons now think about it .

Bible claims that Christ appeared to many people and people witnessed him alive after he died . For example no Jew would use women to provide false witness to fake thier testimony because it would be seen worthless anyways due to the role of woman in such times but God used these women as first people who witnessed Christ .

 

[ViaCrucis]

Paul wasn't writing this so that two thousand years later apologists could try and make a courtroom case for the resurrection. Paul was writing to a specific community of Christians and referenced something they, ostensibly, were already familiar with. Sure, the five hundred Paul was aware of may have not seen anything at all, and the surviving witnesses were making it up--but the implication of what Paul is saying is that many of the people he's referring to were still around, and were known by both himself and those he was writing to.

This was a personal correspondence between Paul and the Christian community in Corinth. When we read it today we are a third party peering into a conversation that, basically, doesn't involve us.

We have no way of corroborating Paul's claim; but as written it seems Paul was confident and there was a mutual knowledge of the people Paul refers to--even if we aren't privy to that information.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

For example no Jew would use women to provide false witness to fake thier testimony because it would be seen worthless anyways due to the role of woman in such times but God used these women as first people who witnessed Christ .

I've always found this attempted justification ridiculous. You are suggesting that if the Bible was lying, it would not have used women as claimed witnesses in an attempt to justify an empty tomb; as women were considered second class citizens during these times. You appear to be asserting this story line suggests the narrative is more truthful, as if the story was a lie, the author provided characters would instead have been men, for more validity.


First and foremost, women were sent to wash and anoint dead bodies, not men. So of course the 'report' would be for women to be there, and not men. The story immediately falls apart otherwise. This attempt in justification also really begs their own question. If God's goal was to spread truth by way of eyewitness attestation in a resurrection, why then would God choose to present himself in resurrection form to individuals whom carry no authority over the masses? It seems more logical to fully represent His resurrected self to vast non-believing individuals, whom are affluent in language, and with the ability to write and travel abroad to spread the messages globally and immediately (aside from Sal alone). Because, after all, the Bible was God's preferred method to spread God's truth. And also, eyewitness testimony is really the only method to verify the supernatural claims to Jesus in this time period. And since eye witness testimony was paramount, and women's testimony carried little weight, this method for attempts in spreading 'truth' appears bazaar.


Furthermore, it seems logical and reasonable that Jesus might have appeared to humans globally, and not just locally. And also to do so to very large crowds across the world (furnishing independent testimonials individually). If truth is universal, why only rely upon local eyewitnesses within the same region? God chose to rather allow for oral tradition to eventually spread 'truth' over a very long period in time.


Isn't the entire purpose of a resurrection to present proof He is the Messiah? If so, if one chooses to present truth, via eyewitness attestation, wouldn't this entity choose to do so to maximize the number of witnesses? Regardless of what witnesses saw, other people, whom never even heard of Jesus Christ, would at least report they saw a figure and describe similar details globally. Mongolians would report similar characteristics about a man with holes in his hands, stating he has returned from the dead. Similar stories would have been written from many global locations. Many may not even believe it, but many would report this event, if they at least saw such an event. In doing so, at least the skeptic would then need to wrestle with the documented fact that global locations all report a witnessed spirit flying around claiming to be a Messiah. This might raise an eyebrow or two. Otherwise, what would be the point to reveal himself to exclusive groups, in exclusive locations only? And yet, all we have are second hand accounts, from unverified claimed eyewitnesses, in a single biased publication. This method does not appear rational.


Getting back to the fact that the first claimed resurrection witness is a female... Well, it's not just any female. It is claimed to be Mary Magdalene; one of the followers of Jesus. She was thought to be just as integral as the disciples in the main story of the New Testament. But this still begs yet another similar question. Why present proof to someone whom is already bias to the claim, and also has absolutely no power to spread the message globally, and successfully? This again makes no sense? Even if the claim were true. She has no authority, and already believes in some capacity. Proving oneself to biased individuals would not prove the best mechanism to convert non-believers. A biased person, whom claims to have received divine revelation, reporting their experience to a non-believer carries even less weight than a skeptic making the same claim (i.e. Sal).


To add insult to injury, the Bible itself also agrees with the cited misogynistic consensus of the region at the time; as in 1 Timothy 2:9-12. So for believers to use this apparent observation validates they too believe females were treated like second class citizens (validated by the Bible).

Thanks

 

[Chinchilla]

I've always found this attempted justification ridiculous. You are suggesting that if the Bible was lying, it would not have used women as claimed witnesses in an attempt to justify an empty tomb; as women were considered second class citizens during these times. You appear to be asserting this story line suggests the narrative is more truthful, as if the story was a lie, the author provided characters would instead have been men, for more validity.


First and foremost, women were sent to wash and anoint dead bodies, not men. So of course the 'report' would be for women to be there, and not men. The story immediately falls apart otherwise. This attempt in justification also really begs their own question. If God's goal was to spread truth by way of eyewitness attestation in a resurrection, why then would God choose to present himself in resurrection form to individuals whom carry no authority over the masses? It seems more logical to fully represent His resurrected self to vast non-believing individuals, whom are affluent in language, and with the ability to write and travel abroad to spread the messages globally and immediately (aside from Sal alone). Because, after all, the Bible was God's preferred method to spread God's truth. And also, eyewitness testimony is really the only method to verify the supernatural claims to Jesus in this time period. And since eye witness testimony was paramount, and women's testimony carried little weight, this method for attempts in spreading 'truth' appears bazaar.


Furthermore, it seems logical and reasonable that Jesus might have appeared to humans globally, and not just locally. And also to do so to very large crowds across the world (furnishing independent testimonials individually). If truth is universal, why only rely upon local eyewitnesses within the same region? God chose to rather allow for oral tradition to eventually spread 'truth' over a very long period in time.


Isn't the entire purpose of a resurrection to present proof He is the Messiah? If so, if one chooses to present truth, via eyewitness attestation, wouldn't this entity choose to do so to maximize the number of witnesses? Regardless of what witnesses saw, other people, whom never even heard of Jesus Christ, would at least report they saw a figure and describe similar details globally. Mongolians would report similar characteristics about a man with holes in his hands, stating he has returned from the dead. Similar stories would have been written from many global locations. Many may not even believe it, but many would report this event, if they at least saw such an event. In doing so, at least the skeptic would then need to wrestle with the documented fact that global locations all report a witnessed spirit flying around claiming to be a Messiah. This might raise an eyebrow or two. Otherwise, what would be the point to reveal himself to exclusive groups, in exclusive locations only? And yet, all we have are second hand accounts, from unverified claimed eyewitnesses, in a single biased publication. This method does not appear rational.


Getting back to the fact that the first claimed resurrection witness is a female... Well, it's not just any female. It is claimed to be Mary Magdalene; one of the followers of Jesus. She was thought to be just as integral as the disciples in the main story of the New Testament. But this still begs yet another similar question. Why present proof to someone whom is already bias to the claim, and also has absolutely no power to spread the message globally, and successfully? This again makes no sense? Even if the claim were true. She has no authority, and already believes in some capacity. Proving oneself to biased individuals would not prove the best mechanism to convert non-believers. A biased person, whom claims to have received divine revelation, reporting their experience to a non-believer carries even less weight than a skeptic making the same claim (i.e. Sal).


To add insult to injury, the Bible itself also agrees with the cited misogynistic consensus of the region at the time; as in 1 Timothy 2:9-12. So for believers to use this apparent observation validates they too believe females were treated like second class citizens (validated by the Bible).

Thanks

Why Jesus did not appear globally to everybody ? Because it was not for gentiles but for Jews only at the beginning. The kingdom was for chosen people , untill later when Jews rejected the Kingdom gospel came to gentiles , even when Jesus was alive he told his Apostles to not go to city of gentiles but only to Israel .

About Mary Magdalene , because God is choosing the stupid things of this world to make the wise of the world stumble .
You could say the same , why Jesus decided to be born in manger rather than being born of in King's family few years before that .
Well you can't be a servant if you are born a King , moreover it validates that Jesus was not somebody who was taught by wise men but he gained his knowledge from God himself because carpender's son was not from the priesthood yet he understood the Scriptures more than all of them so they were surprised where he did gain his knowledge.

1 Corinthians 1:27

So he choose women as his witness . Because it's more glory to God this way if he chooses the weak and make them strong it's all trough the Scriptures , aswell with the last will be the first .

 

[cvanwey]

Paul wasn't writing this so that two thousand years later apologists could try and make a courtroom case for the resurrection. Paul was writing to a specific community of Christians and referenced something they, ostensibly, were already familiar with. Sure, the five hundred Paul was aware of may have not seen anything at all, and the surviving witnesses were making it up--but the implication of what Paul is saying is that many of the people he's referring to were still around, and were known by both himself and those he was writing to.

This was a personal correspondence between Paul and the Christian community in Corinth. When we read it today we are a third party peering into a conversation that, basically, doesn't involve us.

We have no way of corroborating Paul's claim; but as written it seems Paul was confident and there was a mutual knowledge of the people Paul refers to--even if we aren't privy to that information.

-CryptoLutheran

Please let me clarify further...

1. The Bible does not even list who the '500' actually were anywhere within the Bible itself.

2. The attestations of a witnessed resurrection comes from the Bible, and no external reports are really anywhere to validate such a specific claim. Seems rather odd in lieu of such a miraculous claim (most surely one of the most prolific in all the claimed 500's lives I'm sure, if true).

3. Writing something much later, while not even pointing out known witnesses (by name), is about as lack-luster as one could provide, then or now, if one wants to claim any veracity to the assertion.

4. When you state 'Sure, the five hundred Paul was aware of may have not seen anything at all, and the surviving witnesses were making it up.' It does not even need to go this far... You are already assuming that '500 people' did or didn't see what Paul claims. I instead state, "why aren't these 500 mentioned by name to attest such an occurrence at all?" Who are these 500, period? If there was 500 verified who all state they saw the same thing, I would ask differing questions, like one may ask of a mass UFO citing, by interviewing all the witnesses there individually to at least see if their stories match. Yes, they may still have not seen aliens, but it would at least be verified they all saw the same things, and are all actually accounted for. You have nothing close to this from scripture

 

[cvanwey]

Why Jesus did not appear globally to everybody ? Because it was not for gentiles but for Jews only at the beginning. The kingdom was for chosen people , untill later when Jews rejected the Kingdom gospel came to gentiles , even when Jesus was alive he told his Apostles to not go to city of gentiles but only to Israel .

Actual 'truth' of an event happening would be universal; without bias, without prejudice, and without special preferences.

About Mary Magdalene , because God is choosing the stupid things of this world to make the wise of the world stumble .

If God's intent was to verify His validity as the Messiah, seems logical to instead present to people whom can actually do something with the observation (globally). If God realizes that humans are dumb, God would know this. But instead, God applies a method He 'knows' will be slower, mucked up, convoluted, and filled with skepticism and doubt forever. This appears illogical. Knowledge of a claim can still be known, and people can still choose whether to follow such an individual or not. (i.e.) Satan and all the fallen angels... Seems more logical for a resurrection claim to be 'global common knowledge'. Plenty would/could still decide not to follow such a God, based upon their own personal moral values and ethics.

You could say the same , why Jesus decided to be born in manger rather than being born of in King's family few years before that .

But I didn't, because this is not relevant to me. I'm speaking about a resurrection claim, and the lack of any actual verified eyewitness attestation (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:6).

So he choose women as his witness . Because it's more glory to God this way if he chooses the weak and make them strong it's all trough the Scriptures , as well with the last will be the first .

My point is that the message will be much more inefficient, and more will go to hell for their simple bias towards women at the time. Again, common knowledge of a resurrection, can still conclude many choosing to not follow.

1. Knowledge and recognition of an event happening
2. Choosing whether or not to follow the claims from the event

In regards to the presentation of a resurrection claim, 1 Corinthians 15:6 appears severely underwhelming to demonstrate any 'truth' to such a claim. Remember, some would believe and follow, simply by 'knowing' the event even actually happened. When one happens to actually study the method used (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:6), it does not present really any actual evidence, other than Sal's second hand claim or assertion.

Such a large claim was never researched, by simply identifying the '500' by name. Meaning, we do not have '500' witnesses. We have a single secondary claim, by someone whom was not there themselves. Prior to discovering this, I was fully in the camp of, 'there's too many witnesses to deny a resurrection claim.'

Thanks

 

[ViaCrucis]

Please let me clarify further...

1. The Bible does not even list who the '500' actually were anywhere within the Bible itself.

2. The attestations of a witnessed resurrection comes from the Bible, and no external reports are really anywhere to validate such a specific claim. Seems rather odd in lieu of such a miraculous claim (most surely one of the most prolific in all the claimed 500's lives I'm sure, if true).

3. Writing something much later, while not even pointing out known witnesses (by name), is about as lack-luster as one could provide, then or now, if one wants to claim any veracity to the assertion.

4. When you state 'Sure, the five hundred Paul was aware of may have not seen anything at all, and the surviving witnesses were making it up.' It does not even need to go this far... You are already assuming that '500 people' did or didn't see what Paul claims. I instead state, "why aren't these 500 mentioned by name to attest such an occurrence at all?" Who are these 500, period? If there was 500 verified who all state they saw the same thing, I would ask differing questions, like one may ask of a mass UFO citing, by interviewing all the witnesses there individually to at least see if their stories match. Yes, they may still have not seen aliens, but it would at least be verified they all saw the same things, and are all actually accounted for. You have nothing close to this from scripture

I honestly feel like I've answered this about as well as I can. It is completely reasonable to assume, given what we have, that whoever these particular people were known within ancient Christian circles; it's just that none of it has been preserved for us to be able to look into today.

I think it is reasonable to assume that there is often information shared between an ancient writer and their audience that is not necessarily shared with a third party reading two thousand years after the fact.

The language Paul uses indicates that he's sharing a received tradition, in fact a creed, a shared tradition which Paul, the Corinthians, and presumably other early Christian communities were already familiar with. Paul isn't recounting the five hundred, or the Twelve, or Peter, as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus; Paul is repeating a statement of faith shared by the early Christian community about Jesus' resurrection. The point of talking about Jesus' resurrection isn't to try and convince the Corinthians that Jesus rose (they already believed that), the point of talking about Jesus' resurrection is to argue against a misconception some within the Corinthian church had concerning the future resurrection of the dead. There were some in Corinth who apparently didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, to which Paul argues that it's absolutely silly to believe Jesus rose and not believe the dead will rise; because the two are intimately connected. That's Paul's point here. Paul isn't writing to convince people who already believed Jesus rose that Jesus rose, Paul is writing to point out the inconsistency of those who denied a future bodily resurrection yet also believed Jesus did rise--to do this he appeals to the shared tradition and faith they had together.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

I honestly feel like I've answered this about as well as I can. It is completely reasonable to assume, given what we have, that whoever these particular people were known within ancient Christian circles; it's just that none of it has been preserved for us to be able to look into today.

-CryptoLutheran

Wouldn't you think, if the Bible is the Word of God, God would find a way to preserve it? Otherwise, it's susceptible to 'false interpretation', just like ANY other works from antiquity

 

[cvanwey]

Paul isn't recounting the five hundred, or the Twelve, or Peter, as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus; Paul is repeating a statement of faith shared by the early Christian community about Jesus' resurrection. The point of talking about Jesus' resurrection isn't to try and convince the Corinthians that Jesus rose (they already believed that), the point of talking about Jesus' resurrection is to argue against a misconception some within the Corinthian church had concerning the future resurrection of the dead. There were some in Corinth who apparently didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, to which Paul argues that it's absolutely silly to believe Jesus rose and not believe the dead will rise; because the two are intimately connected. That's Paul's point here. Paul isn't writing to convince people who already believed Jesus rose that Jesus rose, Paul is writing to point out the inconsistency of those who denied a future bodily resurrection yet also believed Jesus did rise--to do this he appeals to the shared tradition and faith they had together.

-CryptoLutheran

So you are too verifying and validating that 1 Corinthians 15:6 does not provide any evidentiary account for 'eyewitness testimony'? I understand your response, as you have replied. This is not a straw man attempt. My point of the OP is to demonstrate that the ones using this verse as 'evidence' and to suggest that 'there are too many witnesses to deny a resurrection claim.' are falsely using such a verse. Yes or no?

And since this is one of the single largest claimed 'number of witnesses' verses to substantiate a resurrection, which ones are actually valid to substantiate eyewitness attestation to a resurrection claim?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wouldn't you think, if the Bible is the Word of God, God would find a way to preserve it? Otherwise, it's susceptible to 'false interpretation', just like ANY other works from antiquity

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Scripture is Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you are too verifying and validating that 1 Corinthians 15:6 does not provide any evidentiary account for 'eyewitness testimony'? I understand your response, as you have replied. This is not a straw man attempt. My point of the OP is to demonstrate that the ones using this verse as 'evidence' and to suggest that 'there are too many witnesses to deny a resurrection claim.' are falsely using such a verse. Yes or no?

And since this is one of the single largest claimed 'number of witnesses' verses to substantiate a resurrection, which ones are actually valid to substantiate eyewitness attestation to a resurrection claim?

The text is not evidence of the resurrection. That isn't even Paul's point in the text itself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

The text is not evidence of the resurrection. That isn't even Paul's point in the text itself.

-CryptoLutheran

Where then lies the actual evidence for the resurrection?

 

[cvanwey]

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Scripture is Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

Your response requires further clarification? The Bible 'is' the Word of God, according to scripture. Without the Bible, you have no scripture. The Bible is the title, and the scripture resides within the Bible.

Bible - 'the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.' - Oxford Dictionary

 

[hedrick]

Yes, it is hearsay. I do believe the resurrection occurred, but Paul mentioning what other people saw is hearsay. Particularly since we don’t even know whether he had talked with them himself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your response requires further clarification? The Bible 'is' the Word of God, according to scripture. Without the Bible, you have no scripture. The Bible is the title, and the scripture resides within the Bible.

Bible - 'the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.' - Oxford Dictionary

I'm not aware of anywhere in Scripture where it calls the Bible the "Word of God". Terms like "the word", "God's word", "the word of the Lord", or "Your word" etc all appear in Scripture under a variety of contexts. In the Psalms David writes, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet" by which he refers to the commandments of the Torah. The Prophets often speak in ways such as "The word of the Lord came to me" or variations thereof, by which they speak of the prophetic word or voice of God directing them to their prophetic declarations. Paul frequently uses similar language of "word of God" to refer to the preaching of the Gospel message itself. The author to the Hebrews uses it in a similar way to speak of how the "word of God is living and active" to refer to the message of the Gospel.

When I say Jesus is the Word of God I'm referring to the Christian teaching that Jesus is the eternal and divine Logos, translated usually as "Word", the One who was in the beginning with God and is God (John 1:1).

In Christian theology God's Word is a Person, not a text. God's Word is a Person, who became flesh as Jesus. That's why in John 1:14 we read: "The Word became flesh".

The use of "word" also exists in other contexts as outlined above.

But the Bible never calls the Bible "the Word of God", that doesn't happen. If for no other reason than the simple fact that the Bible, such as it is, didn't exist when the various books which comprise the Bible were written.

Yes, the Bible is the name given to the Sacred Canon of Christian Scripture--didn't say otherwise. My point is that the Bible isn't "the Word of God", Jesus is. The Bible is the collection of Sacred Scripture received by the Christian Church.

Also, The Oxford Dictionary is partly correct. The Protestant Canon consists of sixty-six books, but not all Christians are Protestant. Depending on who you ask there are between 66 and ~80 books in the Christian Bible. Catholics count 73, the Eastern Orthodox count 79, and for things getting really strange the Ethiopian Church has even more (the Ethiopians have the largest Canon of all the historic Churches). And the simple reason for this is that the Canon was never fixed at any time, but has been debated throughout history. The only reason most Protestants have 66, rather than 73, books is because the majority of Protestants follow (more-or-less) Luther's Canon; Luther was of the opinion that the Deuterocanonical books were not properly Canonical, but were nevertheless good to read and so kept them in the Bible in a separate appendix--a tradition which was retained in Protestant Bibles until a little over a century ago when English Bible publishers began printing English Bibles without the Deuterocanonicals altogether. It's, however, worth noting that Lutherans don't have an official position on this matter, even though Luther himself was the one who began the precedent other Protestants have followed.

Historic Christian teaching is that Scripture points us to God's Word (Jesus), St. Augustine for example writes that all of Scripture "contains one and the same Utterance" speaking of Christ. The point of the Bible, in historic Christian teaching, is Jesus. The Bible isn't The Word of God, Jesus is; the Bible points us to God's Word, and conveys both God's Word (Jesus) and the word of God (the Holy Gospel, the commandments) to us for our benefit as the Church.

The Bible is not magic, it's still texts written by other human beings--the reason Scripture is holy and inspired isn't because it's magical, but because by the historic affirmation and reception of the Christian Church we confess that through these texts God continues to deliver to us the life-saving word of Jesus Christ, that we might encounter Him, and have life in Him.

The angle you are working from is, by and large, a Fundamentalist one; which is simply not shared by the vast majority of Christians, since the vast majority of Christians aren't, and never have been, Fundamentalists--after all Fundamentalism did not even exist until a little over a hundred years ago.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where then lies the actual evidence for the resurrection?

I'm not aware of any.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, it is hearsay. I do believe the resurrection occurred, but Paul mentioning what other people saw is hearsay. Particularly since we don’t even know whether he had talked with them himself.

Thank you! This was the point of the OP; To ask how so many use this verse as evidence to 'eyewitness attestation.' However, I have spoken to many 'well educated' people whom claim this verse IS a major piece of vast 'eyewitness attestation.' Many of whom even possess a Dr. degree in Theology. I'm not necessary appealing to authority, just stating the fact, and that then many are possibly being duped.

Which then begs the next logical question.... If people state 'there's just too much evidence to refute a resurrection claim,' is there a valid stance to such a claim? Or does it hinge upon faith alone?