Silent Acorns

I was posting on a Christian forum and was asked to reply to the "several first person witnesses, many historical witnesses, and thousands of second-hand witnesses" to the resurrection. I replied:
I am afraid that I may have jumped the gun and replied too soon based on my limited knowledge of the non-gospel NT. Could you please critique/improve what I said so that I can improve my next response?

Thanks

Cretinist

I'd disagree with it. The account of Paul witnessing Jesus after the resurrection is based on the story in Acts, not Paul's own words. The story in Acts reads like a hallucination, anyway.

Paul's own account of his 'conversion' is in Galatians 1.

So I'd say the grand total is a big-fat zero.

Mageth

Technically, no one witnessed the Resurrection, save Jesus himself and perhaps an angel or two. What people are claimed to have witnessed is the resurrected Jesus. A quibble, but still worth mentioning.

But it is highly probable that we have no first-hand accounts written by people that claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus before the Ascention. Hard-nosed theists would obviously disagree with this and stick to their guns about some of the Gospels having been written by eyewitnesses.

Paul's alleged encounter was a vision of Jesus, happening after the Ascention, so really doesn't count as an "eyewitness" account of the resurrected Jesus. The resurrected body of Jesus was in heaven at the time, not to return to earth until the Second Coming, so what Paul witnessed could not have been the real Jesus.

Bede

Robin Lane Fox, an atheist and incredibly distinguished classical historian, considers John to be a first hand witness of the empty tomb. See his The Unauthorised Version, a largely sceptical account of the Bible from a historians perspective, for details.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Postcard73

The story of Paul's vision appears in Acts 9. Paul himself was so ambiguous about Jesus' physical life on Earth that some people do not think Paul ever intended Jesus to be conceived as an actual, physical human being. Earl Doherty discusses this possibility in The Jesus Puzzle, and ultimately suggests that a historical Jesus never existed at all.

The Gospels are typically dated well after the events took place, and they are not thought by most serious scholars to have been written by actual witnesses. They mention a number of post-resurrection appearances:

Mary Magdalene: Mark 16:9, John 20:11-18.

The women returning from the tomb: Matthew 28:8-10.

Two disciples on the road to Emmaus: Luke 24:13-32, Mark 16:12-13.

Peter in Jerusalem: Luke 24:34.

His disciples and other followers in a locked room in Jerusalem: Luke 24:36-43, John 20:19-23.

His disciples again behind locked doors a few days after the above instance, this time with Thomas present: John 20:24-29.

Seven of His disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee: John 21:1-8.

Eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee: Matthew 28:16-20.

He walked with His disciples along the road to Bethany, on the Mount of Olives, and then rose up to Heaven: Luke 24:50-53.

1 Corinthians 15:5-7 is a rundown of some appearances that include a few not mentioned above:

Cephas: 1 Corinthians 15:5.

500 believers at one time: 1 Corinthians 15:6.

He appeared to James: 1 Corinthians 15:7.

Ironically, Jesus always seemed to appear to people who were illiterate, since none of the above are known to have written their own accounts down. To my knowledge, none of these accounts appear outside the Bible. Thus, referring to the resurrection appearances is basically circular reasoning on the part of the people you are arguing with. Basically your opponents are asking you to respond to the Bible's own proofs of its own validity...

There are a number of articles in the Resurrection section of the Secular Web Library that might interest you. Hope some of this info helps...

Silent Acorns

Yes, I realised this, and almost included it in my original reply at the Christian forum. The other poster was, I believe, referring more to evidence that Jesus had resurrected rather than the actual event itself. As such, to him, visions of Jesus after he died would probably count as an eyewitness account.

Note: This was my 666th post. Do I get something?

Godless Wonder

As far as first hand accounts go, I think it is fair to say we do not and cannot have any. To have a first hand account wouldn't you have to have someone alive today to say, "I was there, I saw it." Those people, if any ever existed, are long dead. All we have is a book by unknown and long dead authors, which makes a lot of very extraordinary claims. That is nothing like a "first hand account."

Silent Acorns

By this do you mean that you doubt that Paul actually wrote what is attributed to him, that we don't have his original writings, or that written testimony doesn't count?

Mageth

But it still leaves a bit of an evidentiary gap in the story that, IMO, leaves a big question mark by the claim of "resurrection". Since no one is recorded to have witnessed the alleged resurrection, the claim that Jesus was resurrected, as in being dead and brought back to life, is not beyond question. You have to rely on "they (second-hand witnesses) claim he was dead and buried, and a few days later they claim to have seen him walking around in good health again."

Silent Acorns

I'm saving this sort of arguement for later because many of the people at that forum are quick to label atheists as "close minded". I'm afraid that questioning whether or not Jesus even died on the cross (let alone whether or not he ever lived) will make them "shake the dust off their feet" (as they like to put it). But your point is noted. Thanks.