That's actually an interesting question. In John, neither Mary nor the disciples in John 21 recognize Jesus initially. He has to open their eyes. This is one reason for suggesting that Jesus' resurrected existence wasn't just his original body brought back to life, but something new, which requires spiritual understanding to recognize. But note that in John this spiritual aspect of Jesus' resurrection coexists with the empty tomb.There was no need for the time, place or date. Paul was stating that many people had seen the risen Jesus and that those who wanted to challenge it could do so by contacting eyewitnesses.
A better question would be 'How did they know that this person was Jesus?'
I'm saying that verse 6 could be based on a real event, but unlike the 1988 appearance we don't have photos to check if the appearance looked like how Jesus was supposed to look.I just came across this article about how scholars accept 1Cor 15:3-7 as being a very early that is within three years of the crucifixtion.
see:-https://winteryknight.com/2019/10/03/why-do-so-many-atheist-historians-think-that-1-corinthians-15-is-reliable-history-2/
Well worth reading.
A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical. I'm not sure of the technical term. If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved? They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.
I'm saying that verse 6 could be based on a real event, but unlike the 1988 appearance we don't have photos to check if the appearance looked like how Jesus was supposed to look.
I think my explanation is better than Richard Carriers at least:
Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once! • Richard Carrier
I think he is saying it was just a mass hallucination
This is a Gnostic belief and should be rejected. Some ancient Christians maintained that Jesus was raised in the spirit, not in the body, that his body died and rotted in the grave, as bodies do, but that his spirit lived on and ascended to heaven. This view became prominent among various groups of Gnostic Christians and was considered heretical.A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical. I'm not sure of the technical term. If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved? They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.
In the case of the Resurrection, the Bible itself dismisses any thought that Jesus rose spiritually but not physically. That is the wonder and significance of the Resurrection. After all, people generally believe in life after death...as a spirit. They wouldn't need to see the ghost of Christ in order to be impressed by that possibility.From my own experiences, I would say that it's okay to struggle with the sort of modernist mindset that makes it hard to accept miracles, but that you need to admit that you're struggling. There's really no point in abandoning orthodoxy and trying to build your own easy-to-believe version of Christianity instead. Might as well just be a deist.
Ask her to clarify because there is some nuance here. She might be referring to 1 Corinthians 15:42-44...A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical. I'm not sure of the technical term. If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved? They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.
I think the wording of the article discredits itself. The Gospels have been dealt with by quite a range of people, Christian and not. That they are inerrant, perfect witnesses is an assertion of faith, which even I don't believe. That they are worthless, however, is at least as hard to support. Almost no atheists who work with Christian history believe that, even if they don't accept the reality of the Resurrection.I'm saying that verse 6 could be based on a real event, but unlike the 1988 appearance we don't have photos to check if the appearance looked like how Jesus was supposed to look.
I think my explanation is better than Richard Carriers at least:
Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once! • Richard Carrier
I think he is saying it was just a mass hallucination
How would they be able to contact the eyewitnesses if there is no mention of when or where it was - the only detail was that there were "over five hundred" and some were dead.
Like the example here:
Seeing/meeting Jesus in modern times
they just believed it was Jesus
I'm saying that verse 6 could be based on a real event, but unlike the 1988 appearance we don't have photos to check if the appearance looked like how Jesus was supposed to look.
I think my explanation is better than Richard Carriers at least:
Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once! • Richard Carrier
I think he is saying it was just a mass hallucination
I'm saying that could have happened in a way similar to this event in 1988:If his appearance to more than 500 people is based on a real event then you are acknowledging that Jesus rose physically from the dead.
She is wrong, and she should be defrocked. Paul made it very clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ is essential.A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical. I'm not sure of the technical term. If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved? They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.
I'll concede that some in the crowd may not have known Jesus personally and had met him face to face, but only that a few.I'm saying that could have happened in a way similar to this event in 1988:
V: Jesus in Nairobi, Kenya, 1988
i.e. it could be a case of mistaken identity - even if many of the crowd were sure it was actually Jesus.
Paul only said they were "brothers and sisters" and that some were living and some were dead. For every other item in the list he mentions their names or whether they were apostles, etc. That implies that no-one in the group knew Jesus personally.I'll concede that some in the crowd may not have known Jesus personally and had met him face to face, but only that a few.
I think it still makes sense if the group thought it was Jesus even if they hadn't met him before. BTW Paul had a vision of Jesus even though he hadn't seen what Jesus actually looks like before.There is no point in magicaly appearing from the dead to people who do not know. The point of the resurrection appearances is to demonstrate that he was alive.
I think it is a modern example of a large group of people who thought they saw Jesus.The kenya incident is of no importance and is irrelevent as it proves nothing....
Paul only said they were "brothers and sisters" and that some were living and some were dead. For every other item in the list he mentions their names or whether they were apostles, etc. That implies that no-one in the group knew Jesus personally.
I think it still makes sense if the group thought it was Jesus even if they hadn't met him before. BTW Paul had a vision of Jesus even though he hadn't seen what Jesus actually looks like before.
I think it is a modern example of a large group of people who thought they saw Jesus.
Paul only said they were "brothers and sisters" and that some were living and some were dead. For every other item in the list he mentions their names or whether they were apostles, etc. That implies that no-one in the group knew Jesus personally
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?