Originally Posted by OAO

Yes, even skeptical experts agree.

By post-mortem appearances of Jesus, I mean that numerous disciples of Jesus has experiences of a risen Jesus after his death. This isn't what's in contention; what's in contention is the explanation of the appearances.

As for the empty tomb:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=7047

Quote:

William Lane Craig:

"What about the empty tomb account? First, it was also part of the pre-Markan Passion narrative. The empty tomb story is syntactically tied to the burial story; indeed, they are just one story. E.g., the antecedent of "him" (Jesus) in Mk. 16:1 is in the burial account (15:43); the women's discussion of the stone presupposes the stone's being rolled over the tomb's entrance; their visiting the tomb presupposes their noting its location in 15.47; the words of the angel "see the place where they laid him" refer back to Joseph's laying body in the tomb.

"As for the other Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e.g., the words translated "on the next day," "the preparation day," "deceiver," "guard [of soldiers]," "to make secure," "to seal"; the expression "on the third day" is also non-Matthean, for he everywhere else uses "after three days;" the expression "chief priests and Pharisees" never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew), but also from Matt. 28.15: "this story has been spread among Jews till this day," indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians. Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting the tomb, which, given John's independence of Luke, indicates a separate tradition behind the story. Moreover, we have already seen that John's independence of Mark shows that he has a separate source for the empty tomb.

"The early sermons in Acts are likely not created by Luke out of whole cloth but represent early apostolic preaching. We find the empty tomb implied in the contrast between David's tomb and Jesus': "David died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day." But "this Jesus God has raised up" (2:29-32; cf. 13.36-7). Finally, the third line of the tradition handed on by Paul summarizes, as I have said, the empty tomb story."

Throw Paul in there and you get five independent sources.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Comments please.

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am not sure that I even except that one "apostle" had a post mortem Jesus visitation. The closest is Paul, but he never clear says so.

More to the point, only by reading the gospels/acts into Paul could a case be made that Paul believed he had actually seen Jesus postmortem. I am tending towards a view that Paul was actually describing an experience of Jesus that is not qualitativly different then what a modern evangelical experiences. Paul was in the spirit.

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Paul said "he appeared" to the apostles.

Then Paul said "he appeared to me".

Since Paul described his meeting with Jesus as a vision, and he uses the same language to describe the meetings with the apostles, I have no reason to doubt that the apostles had visions as well.

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Paul said "he appeared" to the apostles.

Then Paul said "he appeared to me".

Since Paul described his meeting with Jesus as a vision, and he uses the same language to describe the meetings with the apostles, I have no reason to doubt that the apostles had visions as well.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Let's just say that if, in fact, 1Cor15 is original, it could still be read as having been made aware of in the spirit, as opposed to a real visit from Casper.