FunkyRes

Jesus appears to Paul

Use that as a search string on google.
You will find that I am not alone in believing that Paul say a physical Jesus.

Viti

Since Jesus had already supposedly ascended to Heaven, how could he have appeared in the flesh to Paul...or can he do that anytime?

Skeptical

And did Paul _see_ Jesus (or was it a "light")? Did he "touch the wounds"? Did Paul _speak_ with Jesus like the Apostles did in the "appearances" in Mat. and Luke? Did Paul get specific, detailed instructions from Jesus?

That's a different argument and not the argument I was making. My only point was and is that the "appearance" to Paul was qualatatively different than the "appearances" described in Mat. and Luke.

If by "demand" you mean that logic and consistency in reading the text show by a preponderance of evidence that Paul felt the "appearances" were not physical, then yes. If you are still talking about some sort of "proof" that is unattainable outside the realm of science, then no.

History cannot even in the best case give us certainty, it can only give us a higher or lower degree of evidence. In my view, the position that Paul saw the "appearance" to him as spiritual and not physical has a high degree of probability. If you want to ignore the evidence that he thought this because it conflicts with an a priori assumption, feel free to do so. However, do not expect others to share your views without presenting positive evidence to support your position which you have so far failed to do.

Skeptical

I didn't say you were alone, I said I was not aware of any "respected biblical scholar" who believed this. There is a difference between someone who is a believer and reads the text the way they want to see it and someone who studies the NT for a living. If I am wrong about the scholars, please feel free to post a link or two and I will gladly look at them.

FunkyRes

Wrong.
It only would indicate that Paul felt the appearance to him was not physical, and would not predisposition him to believe that the appearances to others were not physical.

In fact, if Paul indeed did think they were not physical, then why did he never argue the issue in any of his letters?

FunkyRes

There weren't very many "respected" biblical scholars who rejected the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP). That is changing now in light of lack of evidence and errors (You can apply the Documentary Hypothesis to the Islamic Koran and get multiple documents- indicating the process is flawed).

Certainly there are biblical scholars that reject the notion that Paul's theology was that Jesus did not physically raise from the dead.

Skeptical

It's awfuly strange then that Paul doesn't seem to make any difference between the "appearances" to others and to himself. He blithely includes his own "appearance" with that of others and makes no distinction in the text unless one simply wishes to read something into it that is not there.

As for arguing it in his letters, you are assuming that there was anything to argue. It has been posited by some that prior to Mark, the "appearances" were understood to be spiritual in the early Jesus movement.(see Earl Doherty's site if your interested)

Even if this wasn't the case, it's an argument from silence and can not tell us much unless you build a cumulative case that Paul argued about many other matters concerning Jesus but left out this one particular matter. Paul definitely said some things about Jesus, but he left an awful lot out so I think making a cumulative case would be difficult. However, if you care to make such a case I would be interested in seeing it.

Skeptical

I would say that the process is _inexact_, as any serious scholar would readily admit. Historiography is not so much a science as an art, there are no absolutes. The documentary hypothesis may be partially correct or completely incorrect, but it can never be said to be completely correct. It's all about what is more _likely_ based on the data we have.

No doubt that's true, but my argument was regarding what Paul thought of his _own_ "appearance". Do you think its too much of a concession to simply say that "yes, Paul thought his appearance was spiritual", because you seem to be going to a lot of trouble to skate around my point that the vast majority of scholars (perhaps all?) believe this to be the case and that it would be very difficult to make a case otherwise.

FunkyRes

I believe the text isn't precise enough to know one way or the other.
So my view is my opinion, and opinion does not scholarship make.

btw- while looking at this on the web, the ONLY scholars I found who felt it was important to mention wether Paul's sighting was literal or figurative- are the SAME one's who mention that Paul thought the resurresction was not literal (and interestingly- they were all hosted on anti-christian domains. There may be some on pro christian domains, but not that I found)

That must be taken into consideration.
The only scholars that seem to care about Paul's acount of seeing Jesus are the ones that want to say Paul didn't believe in physical ressurection. Interesting, no?

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>

Skeptical

Come now, that's a dodge don't you think? What is "imprecise" about the text? Acts clearly claims that:

1) Paul saw a "light"
2) Paul heard a voice
3) Paul did not see Jesus in the flesh
4) Paul did not speak with Jesus
(it is inconceivable that Paul would not have mentioned seeing and speaking with Jesus)

I don't know what exactly is imprecise about this. Also, at some level all historical views are "opinion" since the subjects studied defies "proof". The question is what is the evidence. All the evidence we have is that Paul's experience was nothing like the "appearances" in Mat. and Luke. This is as clear as anything in the NT.

In my research on the web and the books I have read by N. T. Wright, Luke Timothy Johnson and others, the distinct impression I got was that Paul's experience was of a spiritual Jesus. I cannot say that they explicitly addressed the question, but since it is clearly the scholarly norm, I would think they would have mentioned it if they disagreed.

I would agree that the only ones who feel they need to emphasize it are either Jesus mythers or physical resurrection doubters. I believe the other scholars believe it, but just don't find it worth arguing about.

It's interesting in the same way that it's interesting that only inerrantists seem interested in arguing about whether the gospels were written by "eyewitnesses". The majority of scholars agree that they were not, many just don't think its worth arguing about. Since I don't qualify as a "scholar", I will argue about these topics.