Johnny Skeptic

If there were 500 eyewitnesses, are there any external records that offer reasonable confirmation of the claim? I am not aware of any such evidence.

1 Corinthians 15:6 says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." There is no indication that any of the 500 people recognized Jesus from a close distance, touched him or heard him speak. Matthew 28:17 helps my argument with "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." All of the 500 people might have doubted to.

Who needs 500 eyewitnesses? Luke 24:33-34 say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.� Here we have the disciples “and them that were with them� believing that Jesus rose from the dead based solely upon the testimony of Simon, even though initially virtually no one thought that Jesus would rise from the dead. John adds credibility to my argument where he says that when Peter saw the empty tomb he went away confused, and when Mary saw the empty tomb she thought that the body had been moved. In the NIV, Mark 16:14 says "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen." How could Jesus possibly have rebuked the disciples for their unbelief in Mark 16:14 when Luke 24:33-34 says that the disciples "and them that were with them" believed that Jesus had risen from the dead solely based upon the testimony of Simon? Clearly, the prevailing attitudes at that time as indicated by the texts themselves preclude any reasonable possibility that Luke 24:33-34 is factual.

Diogenes, thanks for explaining to me what Peter Kirby meant.

andrewcriddle

Are you assuming that Luke's account of Paul's meeting with the risen Jesus is accurate in detail ?

If so you should justify it. Luke has theological reasons to represent the post-Ascension appearance to Paul as much less material than the pre-Ascension appearances to the other disciples.
I have said in other posts why the presence of (at least part) of this passage in the texts of Paul used by Marcion and the Valentinians makes an interpolation unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is arguing for the future bodily resurrection (in some sense of bodily) of Christian believers. The resurrection of Christ is not only the cause of this hoped for future resurrection but the first example of it

IMO this argument can only work if the resurrection of Jesus is seen as bodily (again in some sense of bodily.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Mark 16:9-20 is a 2nd century addition to the original text of Mark; ie later than Luke 24 which it probably borrows from.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

That doesn't work, Andrew. When the texts were written is completely irrelevant. All that is relevant is trying to make sense out of the chronology. Assuming that Mark 16:14 happened first, Jesus "rebuked [the disciples] for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen." Luke 24:33-34 contradict Mark 16:14 by indicating that the disciples had not yet seen Jesus after he rose from the dead.

If Luke 24:33-34 happened first, the disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead without having seen him, but the verses contradict Mark 16:14 which says that Jesus "rebuked [the disciples] for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen." Please tell me which chronology you favor, Andrew, and then we can discuss it.

Johnny Skeptic

Possibly the best argument against the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses is simple one, that it is not corroborated anywhere in the New Testament or in external records. William Lane Craig speaks of "multiple, independent attestations" regarding the Resurrection, mainly referring to the Gospels and 1 Corinthians, but there is nothing multiple about the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, so Craig will have to find some other argument regarding that topic.

Diogenes the Cynic

Even if true, that doesn't mean Paul thought the bodily resurrection had occurred on earth. The fact that Paul includes his own experiences in his appearance chronology would indicate to me that he did not consider the "appearances" to be physical.

andrewcriddle

My point is that Mark 16:9-20 is a late secondary tradition of no independent historical value.

Even If (Properly understood) it can be reconciled with Luke 24 it is still of no independent historical value.

Even If it is in contradiction to Luke 24 this does not weaked the historical value of Luke .

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Well, I have an argument that does weaken the historical value of Luke 24:33-34. The verses say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.� Here we have the disciples “and them that were with them� believing that Jesus rose from the dead based solely upon the testimony of Simon, even though initially virtually no one thought that Jesus would rise from the dead. John adds credibility to my argument where he says that when Peter saw the empty tomb he went away confused, and when Mary saw the empty tomb she thought that the body had been moved. Clearly, the prevailing attitudes at that time as indicated by the texts themselves preclude any reasonable possibility that Luke 24:33-34 is factual.

1 Corinthians 15:6 says “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.� There is no mention that Jesus was recognized from a short distance away or that he said anything. Matthew 28:17 says “And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.� There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that the same was not the case with the 500 brethren. In fact, there are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that any of the 500 brethren did not doubt.

Dargo

Perhaps a more interesting question is why would an allegedly resurected Jesus only appear before 500? Why not make an appearance in the temple in front of the high priests? Let's see them try to hush up that. Why not drop in on Pilate? I'm pretty sure if some guy I'd ordered executed rose from the dead, I'd believe just about anything he said! Why not drop in on various world leaders and spread the gospel rapidly. Instead, Jesus just appears to his closest followers and expects everyone else to take their word for it or more correctly the word of a few authors writing decades after the events in quesiton who probably weren't even first hand witnesses. You'd think the almighty could do a lot better than that. The gospel is supposed to be the most important message event in human history and god can't be bothered to provide convincing proof of it ever happening. Could that have something to do with the fact the the majority of the world's population doesn't even claim to be Christian?