bacht

I'm not sure what you mean by firsthand evidence, but many of the texts in the NT point to Peter as a first generation apostle. He's featured in all the gospels, and a couple of Paul's letters, and obviously in the Petrine letters. In Acts he is the twin of Paul, dominating the first section of the book in his ministry to the Jews, while Paul dominates the latter part of the book in his ministry to the gentiles.

He was also the focus of non-canonical books like the Acts of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Peter. I'm not saying I believe there was such a person or that he was important, just that the early record reflects this view.

Johnny Skeptic

What events did Peter write about that he claims to have witnessed firsthand?

andrewcriddle

Johnny asked me to comment here on the sources for the NT accounts of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 15 is largely based on Paul's own experiences and the experiences of people such as Peter and James whom Paul had met. (I accept the authenticity of this passage, there have been various threads on this forum arguing that it is a post-Pauline interpolation.)

The accounts in Matthew Luke and John are further away from eyewitness testimony than is the account in 1 Corinthians 15. It is not clear how far the acounts are from eyewitness testimony and the answer probably differs between the different Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

bacht

You're asking the wrong guy. I suspect there was no Peter, so anything written in his name was pseudonymous.

In 2 Peter the author describes a Transfiguration scene similar to but slightly different from the gospel version. 1 Corinthians 15 says that Christ appeared to Cephas and the twelve, I don't know if this means Peter.

In the gospels Peter is presented as one of the first disciples. Mark has Jesus stop at Peter's house while teaching and healing. Peter witnesses the Transfiguration with John and James, and confesses his belief that Jesus is the messiah. John has a special scene after the resurrection where Peter is asked to "feed my sheep".

In Acts Peter is a superstar, leading the disciples after the Ascension. He steps up during Pentecost and heroically preaches Christ in Jerusalem.

If there was a real Peter he probably didn't write any of this nor dictated it to someone else.

Johnny Skeptic

No evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

aa5874

But how in the world could the Pauline writer be an EYEWITNESS to an event that NO-ONE has ever been known to have witnessed?

The Pauline post-resurrection eyewitness account is just a FABLE and empirically will always be a FABLE .

Once Jesus was just a man who died and was buried, Paul's EYEWITNESS accounts of the resurrection, no matter if he hallucinated, could not have brought JESUS to LIFE.

The dead rotting body of Jesus would have remained right there in the tomb with the BARE bones for a very long time.

Paul's eyewitness accounts, hallucinations and visions are irrelevant. The body of Jesus remained right where it was buried.

The Pauline writer is one of the writers of the NT Canon who most likely LIED about being a post-resurrection eyewitness of Jesus.

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

1. It is reasonable to assume that all interpolations in the writings of antiquity are not obvious. Thus, it is plausible that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an interpolation. Isn't the date of the oldest copy of the passage centuries after the supposed facts? Surely history is full of clever interpolators.

2. Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not claim firsthand that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.

3. The independece of Matthew and Luke is questionable.

4. John was written much too late to be of much value to Christians.

5. There is not reasonable proof regarding who wrote Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

6. It is plausible that some or all of the Gospels were written a good deal later than many conservative Christians believe was the case.

7. We cannot be reasonably certain that Peter wrote for himself. That brings into question whether or not Mark used Peter as a source.

Apparently, without 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, you have no case at all that Jesus made post-resurrection appearances.

Guilt by association is a very important issue. If a man makes a number of false claims, you are suspicious of his claims even when he might be telling the truth. Since the Bible contain many claims that are probably false, and many more claims that are questionable, it is reasonable for people to be suspicious about 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and about many other Scriptures. It would be ridiculous for anyone to claim that it doesn't matter if a book that was supposedly inspired by God contained lots of false and questionable claims.

andrewcriddle

The oldest copy of the passage is P46 usually dated c 200 CE.
There is good evidence of widespread 2nd century use of this passage by both orthodox and unorthodox Christians. I don't think it can plausibly be a 2nd century interpolation.

(As I said, there are previous threads on this forum discussing this in detail.)

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

What evidence? When in the 2nd century?

Why not? If the passage was an interpolation, how could you know that?

Guilt by association is a very important issue. If a man makes a number of false claims, you are suspicious of his claims even when he might be telling the truth. Since the Bible contain many claims that are probably false, and many more claims that are questionable, it is reasonable for people to be suspicious about 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and about many other Scriptures. It would be ridiculous for anyone to claim that it doesn't matter if a book that was supposedly inspired by God contained lots of false and questionable claims.

Aside from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, what other evidence do you have that Jesus made some post-resurrection appearances?

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, that does not reasonably prove why he rose from the dead, and there are lots of valid philosophical and moral arguments against the Bible.

andrewcriddle

From an earlier Thread