NOGO

This is my third thread on the differences between the Gospels and the Epistles.

In The Lord's Supper: ... I dealt with differences between Paul`s Lord Supper and the Gospels version.

In Why doubt the historicity of Jesus? I talked about when Jesus got the title of "Son of God". The Gospels clearly have it before his death while Paul and Hebrews place it after his resurrection.

In this thread I want to compare Paul's resurrection with the Gospels.

The Gospels have Jesus appearing bodily to the disciples. He walks with them, talks to them, even eats fish with them. Jesus shows them his wounds and Thomas stuck his finger in them.

Jesus insists, occording to Luke, that he had flesh and bones.

Luke 24
39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

And finally after many appearances Jesus is taken up into heaven.

Luke 24
51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.

One must conclude from this that the appearance have ceased. But no Paul tells us that there were others, that is post ascension, appearances.

But these appearances are very different if we are to believe Paul. Paul saw a light and heard a voice. No body, no bones and no flesh.

Paul tells us that we die with a corruptible body but resurrect with an incorruptible body.

But how can this be. Jesus still had bones and flesh and more important he still had wounds. If wounds are not corruption, what is? Jesus also ate fish to prove that he was still flesh and bones. An incorruptible body would not require any nourishment.

Note that we are talking about Paul's favourite subject, the resurrection. We do not have the excuse that Paul did not care about this subject enough to mention what Jesus did and did not do. Paul simply does not see the resurrection in the same way as the Gospel writers did.

In Paul's perspective it would be hard to make a big event out the ascension as most Christians do today. For Paul there was no ascension from earth. Jesus just went back and forth at will.

Attonitus

Perhaps_for Paul the Jesus physical body doesn't raised and
Jesus only raised in the spiritual body of the Christian
Ekklesia.

NOGO

If we are talking history then it is not a matter of opinion.

Luke says flesh and bones

Luke 24:39
"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

This is Paul's version

1 Cor 15
36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;
37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

Quite opposite to what Luke is saying!


38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.


Luke's Jesus must have had a spiritual body with flesh and bones not unlike the mortal body.

This is the clincher

50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

But Luke has a flesh and bone Jesus being carried off to heaven.

Paul and the Gospels diverge on basic things which leads to the conclusion that Paul's faith does not derive from the same source as the Gospels do.