Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?

[Bernard Muller]

In his letter, Paul claims that over a hundred saw Jesus after He resurrected. People at that time had the advantage that they could investigate the stories for themselves. They could go to Galilee or Jerusalem and ask who had seen Jesus after the resurrection. If this was a "mass vision" like people have today on rare occasion of religious figures, I suppose that the Corinthians really could find people who said that they witnessed Jesus after the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-11 was not written by Paul, but much latter by an interpolator:
http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

FWIW, 2 Peter 1:16 is direct admission that the miracle stories about Jesus weren't fabricated.

First, critical scholars agree that 2 Peter was written well into the second century and certainly not by Peter.
Second, these cunningly devised fables seem to me referring to parts of the gospels, because the author based the "majesty" of Christ only on what God would have said on top of that holy mount.
2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Cordially, Bernard

[John Kesler]

The second option makes more sense in terms of harmonization. If a friend sends another friend to ask you and your other friends to meet him in another city, but then stops by your house that day and again eight days later before your big meeting, this does not make you wrong if you say: "My friend sent a friend to tell me to meet him in another city, where I went with my friends and met him".

There's no end to the how-it-could-have-been "explanations" one can posit, and in nearly two decades of discussing the Bible on the Internet, I have seen many. To argue that Matthew's Jesus, and an angel, said on resurrection morning to go to Galilee, and that there is where the apostles would meet Jesus, but that Jesus changed his mind and made two Jerusalem appearances a week apart, plus an appearance by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee before the predicted appearance on a mountain in Galilee, strains credibility.

[MrMacSon]

Resurrection of an mammalian body, after being dead for 2 or more days, is biologically and medically impossible (especially after having been strung up on a cross).

[rakovsky]

. . This "solution" would work in the case of the gospels if you could find direct admissions by the gospel writers that they fabricated the miracle stories about Jesus. But this is hard to do. If you lived in the 1st century and Peter, James, or John confided in you that they made it up, that would be an excellent proof. You wouldn't even need to time travel to see what happened with the body.

FWIW,2 Peter 1:16 is direct admission that the miracle stories about Jesus weren't fabricated.

It says "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

This passage is useful to the extent that some rationalists propose that the apostolic community only intended Jesus' biographies to be understood as myths. In fact, they were to be taken as factual miracle accounts.

However, the intention does not prove that what they portrayed was realistic- it still could have been delusional or fabricated despite such statements. If Roman pagans or the nonChristian rabbis had taught that Jesus' miracles were real, such statements' value would be greater.

[rakovsky]

In his letter, Paul claims that over a hundred saw Jesus after He resurrected. People at that time had the advantage that they could investigate the stories for themselves. They could go to Galilee or Jerusalem and ask who had seen Jesus after the resurrection. If this was a "mass vision" like people have today on rare occasion of religious figures, I suppose that the Corinthians really could find people who said that they witnessed Jesus after the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-11 was not written by Paul, but much latter by an interpolator:
http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard,

Thanks for your reply.
That website claims that 1 Cor. 15:3-11 was a later interpolation, first of all because it proposes that Mark lacks the idea of a three day resurrection but only says "after three days" (Mark 8:31), not on the third day.

First of all, Mark actually does suggest twice that the Resurrection was in three days:

Mark 14:58
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Mark 15:29
And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,

Second of all, in Mark's own account it appears that the resurrection would occur on the third day (Sunday).

Third, the website quotes Mark 9:31 as saying that the resurrection would be after three days. But in fact, that verse says: ((For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.” ))
So if he is killed on Friday, Friday is the "First Day" of the count, and Sunday is the third day.

Fourth, maybe there is a linguistic explanation. In Greek, it says "meta", which can mean "after" or "with", according to Strong's. I know that normally it means "after", but perhaps "with" could be taken more loosely? For example, Matthew 5:41 says: "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with (meta) him two". It is not translated to mean to go three miles total.

[rakovsky]

FWIW, 2 Peter 1:16 is direct admission that the miracle stories about Jesus weren't fabricated.

First, critical scholars agree that 2 Peter was written well into the second century and certainly not by Peter.
Second, these cunningly devised fables seem to me referring to parts of the gospels, because the author based the "majesty" of Christ only on what God would have said on top of that holy mount.
2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard,

The passage is relevant in that it suggests that the early Christian community took the stories as intended to be factual, rather than allegorical. Whether it was written by Peter or not, it does not objectively, logically prove that the accounts were factually true, just as an analogous statement by the Sanhedrin to the opposite effect would not prove the Sanhedrin's opposing viewpoint correct.

[rakovsky]

The second option makes more sense in terms of harmonization. If a friend sends another friend to ask you and your other friends to meet him in another city, but then stops by your house that day and again eight days later before your big meeting, this does not make you wrong if you say: "My friend sent a friend to tell me to meet him in another city, where I went with my friends and met him".

There's no end to the how-it-could-have-been "explanations" one can posit, and in nearly two decades of discussing the Bible on the Internet, I have seen many. To argue that Matthew's Jesus, and an angel, said on resurrection morning to go to Galilee, and that there is where the apostles would meet Jesus, but that Jesus changed his mind and made two Jerusalem appearances a week apart, plus an appearance by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee before the predicted appearance on a mountain in Galilee, strains credibility.

John,

Did you see my fifth bullet point on my first post in the thread where I said that it looks like Luke deliberately changed Matthew's reference to meeting in Galilee into a needless reference to Jesus saying something "when" he was in Galilee? It seems that he is trying to edit out the meaning of Matthew's prediction of a meeting in Galilee. So that is the sign that most strains credibility as to the contradiction between Luke and Matthew about visiting Galilee.

Besides that sign, Matthew and Luke give opposite impressions about whether the first meeting was in Galilee or in Jerusalem. But other than their opposite impressions and Luke's apparent censoring out the angel's instruction about Galilee, the accounts are not contradictory, because of the analogy I gave. Jesus need not have "changed his mind" about Galilee, as you proposed above, for both accounts to be factually true. This is because in the analogy I gave, there is no change of mind:

If a friend (eg. Carl) sends another friend to ask you and your other friends to meet him in another city, but then stops by your house that day and then again eight days later before your big meeting, this does not make you wrong if you say: "(Carl) sent a friend to tell me to meet him in another city, where I went with my friends and met him".

Matthew's account would be like Carl's instructions to meet him in the city and like your account of that appointed meeting, while Luke's account would be the two or three impromptu meetings where you stopped in before they went to go there.

[Bernard Muller]

First of all, Mark actually does suggest twice that the Resurrection was in three days:

No contest here. Also Mark had Jesus 3 times predicting he will resurrect after three days.
I cannot see your point here.

Second of all, in Mark's own account it appears that the resurrection would occur on the third day (Sunday).

But "on the third day" is not the same than "after three days" (= (at least) "on the fourth day"). I provided many examples in ancient Greek literature demonstrating that on my blog post previously indicated. There is a huge discontinuity here between the empty tomb passage and the rest of the gospel.

Third, the website quotes Mark 9:31 as saying that the resurrection would be after three days. But in fact, that verse says: ((For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.” ))

The Alexandrian retention, deemed the most faithful to the original text, has "after three days" for Mk 9:31 (see translation of the NIV & RSV). I would not trust the KJV or any other bibles based on the Textus Receptus, itself largely based on the much later Byzantine retention with some harmonizations and other misleading stuff.

So if he is killed on Friday, Friday is the "First Day" of the count, and Sunday is the third day.

Yes, but "on the third day" is not the same than "after three days".

Fourth, maybe there is a linguistic explanation. In Greek, it says "meta", which can mean "after" or "with", according to Strong's. I know that normally it means "after", but perhaps "with" could be taken more loosely? For example, Matthew 5:41 says: "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with (meta) him two". It is not translated to mean to go three miles total.

I do not think "with three days" would make any sense. In Mk 1:14, 9:2, 13:24, 14:28, 14:70, 16:2, "Mark" used 'meta' when an action is after another one or a certain amount of time.

Cordially. Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

The passage is relevant in that it suggests that the early Christian community took the stories as intended to be factual, rather than allegorical. Whether it was written by Peter or not, it does not objectively, logically prove that the accounts were factually true, just as an analogous statement by the Sanhedrin to the opposite effect would not prove the Sanhedrin's opposing viewpoint correct.

I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

Cordially, Bernard