hallq

I've read Farrell Till's Did They Tarry in the City and want to see the best Christian responses to it. If you've heard of one, and want to offer up your own, please tell me.

John Kesler

Robert Turkel attempts to refute Till's article here. Turkel's basic argument is that just as Luke's gospel doesn't mention Jesus' forty-day, post-resurrection sojourn, a detail found in Acts 1:3, so, too, Luke, in "telescoping" his narrative, omits the appearance in Galilee. Turkel contends that the appearance on the mountain in Galilee occurs between Luke 24:44 and 24:45.

Analysis of Matthew's gospel, however, makes clear that according to Matthew, the appearance in Galilee was the first post-resurrection appearance to the disciples. Consider Jesus' prediction in Matthew 26:31-32:

What sense does it make to think that Jesus would predict that after he was resurrected, he would go to Galilee, if his first appearance to the disciples would actually be in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36 ff)? In Matthew's resurrection narrative, the promise of a Galilean appearance is reiterated, first by the angel, then by Jesus himself:

Matthew 28:16 states that the disciples followed Jesus' instructions and met him in Galilee.

All of this should make clear that according to Matthew, the appearance in Galilee wasn't just an appearance of Jesus, it was the predicted appearance at which Jesus revealed himself to his disciples--just as he had predicted.

Just as striking as what Matthew says, however, and just as revealing, is what Luke omits. In Luke's gospel, contra Mathew (and Mark, at 14:28), there is no prediction of a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee.

Instead, in Luke 9:22 and 44 (see also 18:31-34), Luke's Jesus says nothing about going to Galilee. For Luke's Jesus, Galilee is the place from which Jesus made his resurrection prediction rather than the predicted location of his appearance.

This analysis should make clear that each gospel is internally consistent about where Jesus made his first post-resurrection appearance. Each author had his own version of the story to tell, and attempts to conflate disparate accounts are fruitless and make Jesus appear foolish.

hallq

Thanks.:notworthy:

At times like this, I wonder if Christianity is best refuted simply by exposing people to as much apologetics as possible - some of the rationalizations are so implausible as to be self-refuting.

John Kesler

There is some truth to this. Certainly some of the "explanations" offered by apologists actually highlight the problems. However, in fairness, some skeptics find "errors" in the Bible where none exist, so Christians could point to such skeptics as "proof" that the Bible is free of errors.