Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[psstein]

All Christians have are alleged post-resurrection appearances. But since tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have claimed to seen, touched, and interacted with their recently departed, dead friend or loved one over the history of mankind, this in itself is NOT evidence that a body was resurrected, only that people believed one had been resurrected. If claims such as "Dead Johnnie appeared to me last night" were unheard of in the history of mankind, then I would take a claim that one had seen a dead Jesus as good evidence for a Resurrection claim. But since after death appearances are a dime a dozen, a similar claim for Jesus, even in an Honor Shame society, should not be surprising at all, and is not good evidence for the reality of such an event.

The interesting thing about these appearances, however, is twofold. First, they occurred to people who were not among the disciples (Paul and James). James is particularly interesting, as he thought his brother had gone insane! Second, although post-death appearances aren't uncommon, how many of them lead people to believe their loved ones have risen from the dead?

Hallucinations generally don't have transformative power, which these appearances did.

[Gary]

The interesting thing about these appearances, however, is twofold. First, they occurred to people who were not among the disciples (Paul and James). James is particularly interesting, as he thought his brother had gone insane! Second, although post-death appearances aren't uncommon, how many of them lead people to believe their loved ones have risen from the dead?

Hallucinations generally don't have transformative power, which these appearances did.

We have no proof that a body appeared to James. For all we know, his appearance was a talking bright light, like Paul's. Many people have seen their dead loved one and believed that they were alive. In one account of the Gospels, Jesus ascends on the very same day as his resurrection. If you believe that Jesus appeared to you in the morning and then is gone to heaven that evening, how can you be sure it was a vision, an hallucination, or reality?

The post resurrection appearance stories are so varied that it is very possible that the they are later embellishments. After all, the first gospel written didn't mention ANY post death appearances!

(When I say "later" it could be later like a few years after Jesus death later or even after the writing of "Mark" later. The fact that the author of Mark leaves out any appearances is very telling. Either Mark had never heard of post death appearance stories or he did not believe them to be historical. Why else would he not provide this incredible evidence for his claim of a resurrected dead messiah??

[37818]

You can use that harmonization to explain the discrepancy in the exact hour of Jesus death, but not the day of this death.

The day of Christ's death was the day after the 14th of Nisan being the 15th of Nisan. See Mark 14:12, 17.

[psstein]

We have no proof that a body appeared to James. For all we know, his appearance was a talking bright light, like Paul's. Many people have seen their dead loved one and believed that they were alive. In one account of the Gospels, Jesus ascends on the very same day as his resurrection. If you believe that Jesus appeared to you in the morning and then is gone to heaven that evening, how can you be sure it was a vision, an hallucination, or reality?

The post resurrection appearance stories are so varied that it is very possible that the they are later embellishments. After all, the first gospel written didn't mention ANY post death appearances!

(When I say "later" it could be later like a few years after Jesus death later or even after the writing of "Mark" later. The fact that the author of Mark leaves out any appearances is very telling. Either Mark had never heard of post death appearance stories or he did not believe them to be historical. Why else would he not provide this incredible evidence for his claim of a resurrected dead messiah??

The way Mark ends is extremely odd, with the word "gar" (for) as the final word. Normally in Greek, you don't end a sentence (or a book) with "gar." It's possible the original manuscript didn't end at 16:8, but actually went on, which is why the longer ending was developed. There are some other alternatives as well, such as Mark dying before he could complete the book.

As for the nature of the appearances, it seems as though Paul is narrating a sort of physical appearance, not a spiritual one. Again, when Acts and Paul conflict, go with Paul.

I don't buy the appearance stories being late additions either. The Lukan tradition is so different from the Markan and Matthean one that it seems as though it was a very memorable event in communal memory.

[Gary]

The day of Christ's death was the day after the 14th of Nisan being the 15th of Nisan. See Mark 14:12, 17.

I agree with you. But the Gospel of John says that Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The way Mark ends is extremely odd, with the word "gar" (for) as the final word. Normally in Greek, you don't end a sentence (or a book) with "gar." It's possible the original manuscript didn't end at 16:8, but actually went on, which is why the longer ending was developed.

As for the nature of the appearances, it seems as though Paul is narrating a sort of physical appearance, not a spiritual one. Again, when Acts and Paul conflict, go with Paul.

I was speaking with Nabeel Qureshi Monday and he's doing a dissertation on Mark being early with different reasons than Crossley and Casey. He thinks the ending of Mark is entirely intentional and meant to end with gar.

[Gary]

The way Mark ends is extremely odd, with the word "gar" (for) as the final word. Normally in Greek, you don't end a sentence (or a book) with "gar." It's possible the original manuscript didn't end at 16:8, but actually went on, which is why the longer ending was developed.

As for the nature of the appearances, it seems as though Paul is narrating a sort of physical appearance, not a spiritual one. Again, when Acts and Paul conflict, go with Paul.

In regards to the ending of Mark, you do agree that the overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe that the long ending of Mark found in the King James, for instance, which includes appearances, was part of the original? It is possible that the original said more, but we can't say what since this is either missing (or the author decided to end his story with "for") . Saying that the original probably had appearance stories is pure speculation.

Paul says very little about his "appearance experience". If Bill says, "Have I not seen Bob?" this statement does not tell us whether Bill saw Bob in the flesh or in a dream/hallucination/or vision. If you knew that Bob was still living, you would naturally assume that Bill meant that he had seen Bob in the flesh. But if you knew that Bob was dead, then all bets are off. In fact, it would be more probable that you would infer that Bill had NOT seen dead ol' Bob in the flesh but rather in a dream, hallucination, or vision.

Apologists will often point out here that Paul, as a Pharisee, believed in a bodily resurrection and therefore his statement, "Have I not seen the Christ?" would mean that he saw a body in his appearance experience. But not so fast! Paul could have very well only seen a talking bright light and believed that this was the bodily risen Jesus who for some reason had chosen to appear to him as a bright light and not show Paul his actual resurrected body. Therefore Paul's belief in a bodily resurrection would not be changed by the fact that all he saw was a talking bright light which said it was Jesus.

[psstein]

I was speaking with Nabeel Qureshi Monday and he's doing a dissertation on Mark being early with different reasons than Crossley and Casey. He thinks the ending of Mark is entirely intentional and meant to end with gar.

Yes, there are some people who will take that point of view. I'm completely agnostic on it. Some scholars have argued that fear is a significant theme in Mark's gospel, and so it would make sense.

[psstein]

In regards to the ending of Mark, you do agree that the overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe that the long ending of Mark found in the King James, for instance, which includes appearances, was part of the original? It is possible that the original said more, but we can't say what since this is either missing (or the author decided to end his story with "for") . Saying that the original probably had appearance stories is pure speculation.

Paul says very little about his "appearance experience". If Bill says, "Have I not seen Bob?" this statement does not tell us whether Bill saw Bob in the flesh or in a dream/hallucination/or vision. If you knew that Bob was still living, you would naturally assume that Bill meant that he had seen Bob in the flesh. But if you knew that Bob was dead, then all bets are off. In fact, it would be more probable that you would infer that Bill had NOT seen dead ol' Bob in the flesh but rather in a dream, hallucination, or vision.

Nobody in scholarship believes Mark 16:9-20 was a part of the original. The style is so different that it's clearly added on. I said the original may have had appearance stories, though I'm completely agnostic on the issue.

I think that's kind of an ad hoc way of looking at it. Paul doesn't provide much information on his appearance, but it still is odd that Paul would have an appearance considering he never met Jesus.

[Gary]

Nobody in scholarship believes Mark 16:9-20 was a part of the original. The style is so different that it's clearly added on. I said the original may have had appearance stories, though I'm completely agnostic on the issue.

I think that's kind of an ad hoc way of looking at it. Paul doesn't provide much information on his appearance, but it still is odd that Paul would have an appearance considering he never met Jesus.

I very much agree that it is very odd that a Christian-hating, Christian-persecuting Jewish rabbi would claim to have a vision from Jesus, and even more, that he would convert because of it. It is Paul's claim of seeing Jesus that was the last thread holding me to my cherished Christian faith. I kept asking myself over and over: "Why would Saul of Tarsus, an educated, Jewish rabbi and persecutor of Christians, suddenly believe that he had experienced an encounter with Jesus that had such a dramatic impression on him that he gave up everything to become a Christian missionary."

It just made no sense to me. "Paul HAD TO HAVE seen Jesus! There is just no other good explanation."

But here is why even this issue could not save me from deconversion: The author of Acts quotes Paul as saying that his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road was in a "heavenly vision" in chapter 26. That statement might not be that significant if the author of Acts had made this claim himself, but he tells us that he is quoting Paul. If you are telling me that we should question the accuracy of this quote, then should we question the same author's quotes of Jesus in his gospel (Luke)?

Paul himself never specifies HOW he saw Jesus. Once again, if someone tells you that they have seen someone, and you know that that someone is dead, your first assumption would be that the person had seen the deceased in a vision/dream/hallucination. Your first thought would not be that he had seen the deceased in the flesh. The fact that Paul does not clarify this point leads me to believe that Paul too believed he had truly seen a bodily resurrected Jesus in a vision only.

Another piece of information affected my position on this issue: Weird conversions happen. There is a fundamentalist Muslim cleric in Israel who only a few years ago was an orthodox Jewish settler and rabbinical student. THAT is a weird, very unexpected conversion. I'm not going to say which conversion, this man's or Paul's, is more extreme, but it does show that people can make the strangest of life decisions.

[tabibito]

I agree with you. But the Gospel of John says that Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan.

As do the synoptics.

[tabibito]

One extra piece of information is relevant to the discussion about the day of preparation which resolves the apparent conflict between John's account and Mark 14:12, 17. Luke states that Jesus died on the day of preparation explicitly declaring that it is the day of preparation for the Passover.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9616[/ATTACH]

The dictionary entry there explains the reason why Mark 14 DOESN'T say Jesus died on 15 Nissan, and resolves the apparent conflict between Mark 14:12,17 and .Mark 15:42. 15 Nissan is a SABBATH. Jesus' death on 15 Nissan would have been as much a problem for THAT Sabbath as it would for the weekly Sabbath.
Sending out the disciples to arrange a room on the 14th, and Jesus arriving in the evening for the meal - read the dictionary - would by no means have been difficult in an ordinary year: a much wider margin would have been available in a year of V'adar.

So you are saying that you, Tabby, a Christian non-scholar, understand ancient Jewish dating better than Rabbi Singer and every other Jewish scholar on the planet who sees a discrepancy on this issue??

What do you think makes a person a scholar?

[Gary]

As do the synoptics.

http://normangeisler.com/mike-licona...n-the-gospels/

Gary: I however think that Licona, and Nick, and Stein, and my former pastor, along with many other (moderate) conservative Christians are all doing the smart thing...if one wants to hold onto this ancient tale as historical fact and maintain some level of social respectability: Stick a knife in inerrancy. This is absolutely necessary to keep this ancient tale from collapsing into the graveyard of ancient myths, right along with the Greek and Roman gods. No educated person can stand up in a prestigious university or scientific enterprise and claim that a god created the universe in six literal days, that there was a world wide flood, or that the Christian holy book is inerrant in all its assertions of fact. You would be laughed out the door, and your career ruined. Therefore these very bright, very intelligent people have invented the most complex of philosophy-ladened excuses for why it is perfectly acceptable to read the rest of their holy book nonliterally...but maintain their belief that a dead body was reanimated by an ancient middle-eastern god two thousand years ago.

[tabibito]

In short - there are a number of conflicting arguments - there are at least five - which force the examination of the record itself to resolve the issues raised. Or do you consider it more appropriate to just pick one that feels good and go with that?

Mark 14:12

₁₂

Mark 15:42-43

₄₂ Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, ₄₃ Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

According to Mark 14:12 -

What day was it? - the first day of unleavened bread.
What happens on that day? the passover lamb is killed

According to external information:

Is the passover lamb eaten on the day that it is killed?

In the Hebrew system of counting days, no. It isn't eaten until the next day (Passover)

Can a day in the Hebrew system have two "evenings"?

Yes - the first will occur at start of day, between 6pm and nightfall (between notional sunset and nightfall i.e. evening = twilight/gloaming) the second will be at close of day, between 3pm and 6pm.

Mark 14:16

So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.

According to Mark 14:14-16

Did Jesus send the two disciples into the town the day before he arrived with the twelve?

I however think that Licona, and Nick, and Stein, and my former pastor, along with many other (moderate) conservative Christians are all doing the smart thing...if one wants to hold onto this ancient tale as historical fact and maintain some level of social respectability: Stick a knife in inerrancy.

Sticking a knife in inerrancy (and I did that more than 25 years ago) is one thing - embracing every half baked claim of error is another.

[Darth Ovious]

If Nick believes that the majority of NT scholars believes that Matthew the tax collector, John Mark the companion of Peter, Luke the physician and companion of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote the four Gospels of the New Testament, I would love to see his source for this claim. Or is Nick breaking his own rule and going against the majority scholarly opinion on this issue? If so, I would like to hear his explanation why we should tolerate his picking and choosing when it comes to accepting the majority scholarly opinion on issues related to the Bible.

You didn't fully understand what I said. Look again.

The disagreement we had was based upon my use of the term authorship. If I'm correct then I think Nick believes that the origins of the accounts are not in question.

I think Nick still believes that the gospels can still be traced by to the eyewitnesses. Probably as a form of oral transmission being passed down before being written down.