Loomis

1 Corinthians 15:4-8

Christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to Cephas and secondly to the Twelve. Next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to James, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though I was born when no one expected it.

Paul's list omits any mention of appearances to Mary of Magdala or to "women" as in Matthew, Luke, and John.

Paul's list mentions “the 500” and “James”. But an appearance to “the 500” or to “James” isn’t mentioned in the four canonical gospels.

What’ going on here?

How do you explain this? :eating_popcorn:

Demonstrate once and for all that you have given this compelling issue the attention it deserves. :wave:

aa5874

Now, the gospel of John is considered to have been written after the Synoptics. The author of John wrote that Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died, and resurrected on the third day. The author is aware of the Jesus story but yet he did not write about many of the events found in the Synoptics.

Can you explain why the author of gJohn has no birth narrative?

Why did the author of gJohn omit a genealogy?

Why did the the author omit the temptation?

What about the star, the Magi, fleeing to Egypt, the killing of the Innocent, and the shepherds in the fields?

Why did gJohn omit the stolen body story of Jesus?

The author of gJohn claimed the spices were applied to the body of Jesus before burial of Jesus, but the authors of the Synotics claimed the women tried to apply the spices after the burial.

What is going on here?

All these events are missing from gJohn yet it was written after the Synoptics.

It should be obvious by now that knowing the Jesus story does not mean that every event in any one story is identical or that every version of the Jesus stories must be known.

All the gospel authors and Paul wrote that Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died, rose from the dead and was resurrected, but all their stories have some differences.

fatpie42

Considering women as unworthy of mention is nothing surprising.

Paul says that last of all Jesus appeared to him. We know full well that the appearance of Jesus to Paul was a vision, not a meeting with a real person and we have little reason that the 500 were any different. At the same time could mean within the same short period of time or it could mean a mass religious experience such as we see with speaking in tongues today.

By the time the gospels are written there are a great many people who claim to know the risen Jesus. Wasn't Paul opposed to James in his views? If Paul's version of the religion won out over that of James, perhaps it is not so surprising that James is seen as unimportant by the time the gospels are written. (Okay, now I'm getting especially speculative.)

spamandham

I accept that possibility. I also think the Gospels as we know them may be much later than generally thought.

aa5874

How can you demostrate that the writer Paul even had a vision in the first place? What is the proof of a vision?

How did Paul know that over 500 people, including Cephas and the twelve, saw Jesus in a resurrected state?

Paul did not say that the over 500 people had visions, you therefore have NO reason to claim they had visions. No such thing can be found in the epistles.



The writer Paul is simply providing false or erroneous information but believed to be true at the time of writing. The false information is consistent with writings written very long after the events and are simply backdated.

By the way, when a mass of people talk in tongues you only get mass confusion.

The writer Paul wrote about the confusion or "madness".1Co 14:23 - Now, imagine if over 500 PEOPLE talk in tongues and also claim that they are having visions.


There are no historical records external of the NT that show that a single person believed that Jesus of the NT existed before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Jesus of the NT was fiction backdated. Paul's fictitious conversion was backdated to give a false historical harmonisation.

fatpie42

I don't have to prove that Paul had a vision. This is a text where Paul claims to have a vision on the road to Damascus of the risen Jesus. He also claims that Jesus also appeared to other people. It seems fair to suggest that their experience of such an "appearance" will be pretty similar. My reason for asserting a vision is that Paul claims Jesus appeared to him and I don't believe he saw a living breathing person wandering about. Personal religious experience seems like a good bet.

My presumption is that all appearances of Jesus were religious experiences of some sort. If they claim to have seen Jesus walking around and then dissapearing, that would sound like a vision to me. Heck, Paul's experience can only loosely be interpreted as a 'vision' considering that he is supposed to be struck by temporary blindness at the time.

aa5874

You cannot understand the Jesus of Paul if you view the letters in isolation. You must look at other church writings also.

The letters of Paul were used to contradict Marcion's phantom or non-human Jesus.

Based on that fact, it can be inferred that all appearances of Jesus in the letters BEFORE ascension was in the flesh to the over 500 people including Cephas and the twelve.

Paul's Jesus is the identical Jesus to the one of the Gospels that appeared to the disciples after resurrection and ate fish and bread with them.

The letters of Paul were never considered heresy by the church writers, so Paul's Jesus resurrected in the flesh.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies provided the names of heretics and Paul is not on the list.

Hippolytus wrote a book "Against All Heresies" and Paul is not on the list.

Paul's Jesus based on church writers was completely orthodox.

Paul had revelations from Jesus after he ascended to heaven.

You must take into account the chronology of the story.

In Acts 1, Jesus is witnessed ascending to heaven by the disciples, even two angels were there.

In Acts 9, post-ascension, Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light and Jesus from his post-ascension location spoke to Saul/Paul.

Now look at the Pauline story. It is post resurrection, not post ascension.

1 Corinthians 15.3-7
The Pauline post-resurrection information are from the ascended Jesus. It was the ascended-one who gave the Pauline writer these additional numbers or details which is similar to post-resurrection stories in the other Gospels except for the inflated numbers.

Based on the Gospels, Jesus was seen in the flesh after resurrection, the Pauline revelations from the ascended Jesus himself will confirm that an even larger number of people saw Jesus in the flesh after resurrection.


This additional figure of over 500 people is a good indication that the Pauline letter's are after the Gospels.

No gospel story reported that 500 figure, the Pauline figures appear to be later than the gospels.

maryhelena

I don’t think that Nabataean control of Damascus by Aretas IV is established as a historical fact. Hence dating ‘Paul’ by this very questionable historical claim is not on a very sure footing. Perhaps one needs to always keep an eye open when the NT storyline is referencing historical individuals within a context that produces historical problems:

For instance: Luke mentions the 15th year of Tiberius and links this to the rule of Lysanias of Abilene - something that is out of context historically. Hence indicating an intent that is not purely historical - but referencing an application of a prophetic or number symbolism.

One could view the passage in 2 Cor.11: 32,33 in a similar light. The time period in which Damascus was under Nabataean control was in the reign of Aretas III - who ruled from 87 BC to 64 BC. Aretas IV ruled from 9 BC to 40 CE.

The ‘clue’ to the passage is its problematic core - historically no Nabataean control over Damascus at the time of the NT storyline - yet the passage references such a state. Historically, Aretas III lost control of Damascus in 64 BC - to Pompey, after he, himself, had laid siege to Jerusalem and his army being defeated by Pompey on its retreat. Control of Damascus in 87 BC - loss of control in 64 BC.

Since there is no control of Damascus by Aretas IV during the time “Paul’ visited there - the inference is more likely to the loss of control by Aretes III in 64 BC - which is 100 years to 36/37 CE when Aretas IV defeated the army of Herod Antipas. An event that Josephus, ever mindful of number symbolism, connects to the death of John the Baptist.

Since both Pompey and Aretas III laid siege to Jerusalem in the 64/63 BC period - the passage is referencing the story from the Damascus side of things. Appropriate enough since Damascus became important regarding the storyline for ‘Paul’. i.e. its not the road to Jerusalem that became the clarion call for ‘Paul’ but the road to Damascus, the road that opened his eyes re the gospel to the gentiles.

None of this is evidence, in and of itself, for a non-historical Paul. What it does do is recognize that very often the written text has a deeper, more symbolic, meaning or application. When an inference to number symbolism is observed then the possibility arises that a pure historical intent is not involved. In this case the figure of ‘Paul’ is placed at the end of a 100 year period, a number symbolism. Josephus has done a similar thing with dating the death of James - placing his death in 62/63 CE - 100 years from the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great in 37 BC.

The reasoning that upholds a non-historical Paul is based upon the mythicist position on the gospel story - no historical Jesus means there was no Jesus followers for Saul/Paul to persecute. The storyline in the NT is backdating early Christian history. The NT is an ‘origins’ story - not historical fact but a combination of OT prophecy and mythology.

Clivedurdle

This wiki has "weasel words" disclaimers all over it! But it may actually be reasonably accurate although extremely annoying to some!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic..._New_Testament

aa5874

If John the Baptist was killed 36/37 CE, then based on the gospel story timeline, this would mean Jesus was NOT crucified during the time of Pilate who was governor 26-36 CE.

We would have another failed prophecy.


I don't think the Pauline letters were introduced in the NT as a result of prophecy, just simply to fabricate a false history, but written so very late at which time they were believable.