lycanthrope

I cant help but notice it now, something I didnt notice when I was a christian (actually I still am), that the bible doesnt see eye to eye with regards to Jesus's resurrection.

Pauline epistles mention that Jesus died, rose and went to heaven. Gospels stated that he died, rose and stayed on earth for a period of time, eating food and drinking and appearing to many others

The only such mention in the Pauline epistles was in 1st Corinthian 15:6 which states Jesus was seen by over 500 people at once. But the verse doesnt give any time, place etc like in the Gospels

So what is going on here?

andrewcriddle

1 Corinthians 15 mentions other appearances as well as that in verse 6

Andrew Criddle

Chili

The bible is quit correct on this but in Matthew and Mark Jesus does not go to heaven but instead he returns to Galilee for more purification.

In Luke he goes to heaven and in John heaven is presented as being in the Upper Room without the presence of doubt, which then is after the conversion of Thomas (Mt.24;28) who was not with them the first time Jesus appeared before them (Jn.20:24). The proclamation of Thomas "my Lord and my God" confirmed that ascension took place when all doubt is gone in the mind of the beholder which is what Jesus anticipated when he told Mary Magdalene not to cling to him for ascension has not yet happened. Note here that Thomas is the twin of Peter in faith and doubt and that Magdalene is his very own [beloved] 'temple tramp' who was therefore left in the dark when Jesus died.

lycanthrope

Yes but unlike the Gospels, it doesnt give a time, place. Some say those verses in Corinthian are just a vision.

What do you make of the conflicting Pauline epistles and Gospels? Or is the conflict due to my lack of understanding somewhere?

andrewcriddle

I don't think that the Gospels being more detailed is in itself a problem.
It may be that Paul is giving a brief 'official' summary of the resurrection appearances which he had received from the Jerusalem church, whereas in the Gospels the accounts are part of a continuous narrative and hence more detailed.

There are other differences between Paul and the Gospels that may be more significant. Eg appearances to women followers of Jesus are important in the Gospel accounts but not mentioned by Paul.

Andrew Criddle

lycanthrope

It still doesnt make sense that Paul claim 500 ppl saw Jesus but no mention was in the Gospel. Also Paul specifically did not mention that Jesus came back physically, other than to say he was seen...I find it most intriguing

aa5874

And, remember according to Acts, Saul/Paul was blinded when Jesus spoke to him from heaven.

Did Paul see Jesus and see heaven while he was blind?

It makes no sense, unles Jesus and heaven are nothing to be seen.

Chili

. . . unless we look with our eyes and see with our mind. Friends are said to be seen with our heart and girl friends much the same wherefore philia is a subset of agape where heaven is at.

dog-on

1 Cor 15 is a post-marcion interpolation.

The "appearance", to Paul, seems to be simply a revelation through Scripture, regardless of Acts' spin...

Ben C Smith

I think the apparent discrepancy between 1 Corinthians 15.50 (blood and flesh cannot inherit the kingdom) and Luke 24.39 (the risen Jesus has flesh and bones) is at least related to this question. The mode of resurrection that Paul discusses looks suited for an immediate exaltation into heaven; and note that Paul does not distinguish in kind between his own vision and the visions of those who came before him. The mode of resurrection that Luke puts forth looks more suited to an earthly tenure (which Acts of course limits to 40 days).

How do you put these pieces together? (Just interested.)

The issue of the women seems less sticky to me than the issue of mode; I can easily imagine the early Judean Christians including only male witnesses (and excluding Mary of Magdala) in an official or semiofficial list.

Ben.