I hope someday I become a Catholic apologist like you bro. Jim, bro. Scott, bro. Tim and others. I am a catechist right now. You all have inspired and supplied me my materials. Godbless you guys! Happy Easter!
I wonder too if when the Apostle looks inside and “sees and believes” it was his reaction to seeing the shroud with the image of Jesus on it. Seeing that image he realized the was no theft- but a resurrection
If Jesus just "passed out" on the cross, that would mean he was essentially asleep on the cross. If he was asleep on the cross, wouldn't he have asphyxiated almost immediately if the asphyxiation theory of death is true?
Thanks for this great episode. Although I am a Catholic and a believer in the resurrection of Jesus, one counter-argument that I'm surprised not to have encountered is that the disciples did have one worldly benefit from sticking to their story: prestige as leaders of the new community, even if the Gospel accounts are often unflattering to them. Has anyone ever made or answered this objection?
Hi! I'm also a catholic. I've heard similar questions and answers to them. If we look closely to what that means we know it holds no water. As human beings we pursue mainly 3 things, power, money and sex. The disciples didn't get any of these things, the prestige isn't something you naturally strive for unless it leads you to those three things,. you could see exemplifed in the pharisees, going after power, influence, etc. We, not only have the new testament accounts, but also the extra biblical writings, the majority suffered greatly and died as martyrs, penniless and powerless. Even Saint Paul describes losing his friends when facing trials, so much for that prestige. And if that is what the disciples won, then suffering and dying for it was a pretty dumb way of achieving it, wouldn't you think so?
You're missing one natural explanation. James Tabor said they probably moved the body in the night for burial because the very next day was a religious holiday I don't know the exact name of the holiday.
Thank you for another great episode. If you could add to your to-do list: "Fallen Idol: The Yuri Gagarin Conspiracy" narrated by Elliott Gould, available on Amazon. I'm not into conspiracy theories but I found this one both fascinating and convincing.
Hi all, and thanks for the fantastic work you're doing! I never miss an episode. This episode, to me, misses the main point. Most my atheist friends would argue this story probably didn't happen or is made up. You start on the base that it happened, and pass very fast on why you're so sure of it. I'd love to here more about historical pieces of evidence, because I don't know how to back this. Thanks for the work you and Dom are putting in. Basile (writing from China)
You never got an answer, but the facts that are undisputed by scholars are that: 1. Jesus lived and was crucified as reported 2. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah 3. His followers reported that they saw him alive after death. Other interesting facts are that by the time Paul was writing, in the 40s, there were christian churches everywhere clinging to this story: that Jesus was raised from the death to abolish death and sin for mankind. Where did all these churches come from? The main-stream idea is that the disciples believed so strongly that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they went out into the world and proclaimed the gospel as reported in Acts. These are the facts from the first half of the 1st century that corroborate the event. Now, add to that what has happened the other 2 millennia on top of that (all kinds of miracles, the church, etc. etc.) and you have a strong case for christianity being true.
Near the hallucination part, it was said that the disciples were not expecting the resurrection. I wonder - how did the Pharisees get word of the expectation for Jesus to rise (they mention it when they ask for guards at the tomb) and the disciples not remain expectant and hopeful??
Jesus had predicted his Resurrection. However, the disciples didn't understand him literally, as indicated by their questioning among themselves what "rising from the dead" might mean. The fact they react as they do (disbelieving in the case of Thomas, thinking the body was moved, not knowing what happened in the case of Peter, thinking they're seeing a ghost) confirms this. The Jewish authorities apparently took the statement more literally, or thought that the disciples might.
Great video although at one point Jimmy says that no one was expecting the resurrection and then later he says Jesus told everyone He would resurrect. Which is true? Thanks
Greetings! I think what he says is, that no one expected the resurection until the end of times, not that they were not expecting anything all together
As much as the apostles were exposed to miracles, none of them actually believed Jesus would rise from the dead. Yes they saw Jesus bring back other people from the dead … but there was no Jesus around to resurrect Jesus. As far as they were concerned without Jesus among them there would be no miraculous resurrection. This is why the apostles betrayed Jesus and all but John didn’t watch his execution. Mary knew Jesus was divine and she would have believed he would rise from the dead. That didn’t spare her from the pain of watching his passion.
Still listening to these series. Just wanted to share my thoughts brother Jim and brother Don. For me I believe the truthness of Jesus' resurrection is based on the purpose of the event. I could not and will not concoct wild ideas if you know the deep reason for it. But very entertaining that people would really go through all these absurd explanations just to deface Jesus. Hahaha!
Jimmy, random question: my testosterone is low and I am considering “testosterone replacement therapy” what’s your advice on the subject? And have you considered it your self. Thank you and love your work
If your doctor advises it and you can afford it, Catholic moral theology has no problem with you trying it. If it causes problems down the line then you would need to reevaluate whether it is for you, but there is no initial objection. I hope this helps, and God bless you!
Hi Jimmy, I've been dying to know...Have you read Maria Valtorta? I'm currently reading the Lessons on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans...amazing!!
I don't know how you could work it into your schedule, but could you do a video about the problems with the Islamic interpretation of the crucifixion? I bring this up, because it's my understanding, that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was crucified , and that God made someone else look like Jesus, and he was crucified in his place. I can talk to non-believers about why Jesus must have rose from the dead, but that's a little harder to do with people who are taught that he was never crucified to begin with. Or if you can't do a video on it, could you refer me to a source that can help with that? I can defend my faith pretty well, but when it comes to Muslims, that's really hard, not because I don't know what I'm talking about, but because they won't accept the evidence.
But what are the odds that two people have that recognition disorder together on the road to Emmaus. Hehe I still believe Jesus wants us to focus on the Eucharist in preparation for His ascension or absence. Hehehe again boils down to the purpose of the story. Right?
I think the women didn't recognize him/thought he was the gardener because he was undressed and they weren't looking. Modesty would have required it. A gardener would be minimally clad and Jesus would have left burial shroud behind.
Jesus would not have had a problem manifesting clothing. There was no way he would have presented himself to Mary Magdalene, a woman, in the nude. And clearly he was clothed on the Road to Emmaus and when he appeared to the Apostles.
@@lorraineklimek1677 No doubt. However the clothing of Jewish workmen in the ancient Mediterranean vs Gentiles is a bit of a mystery, since Greeks often worked nude or nearly so. Jews wouldn't have, but it remains in question how much or how little Jewish fishermen, builders, or gardeners would have worn in contrast their Gentile neighbors. So this is where I got the notion of how he might have been momentarily mistaken for a gardener.
Jimmy! Can you look at DMT and mechanical gnomes/elves? What are these things? Psychedelic experiences real, or totally internal? Trust me this is a thing.....lol.
Lucid Locomotive I’ve done it. It was without a doubt the most intense and strange experience of my life, it was as strange as life itself. Usually dreams and hallucinations have an element of “delusion” to them, where you can tell that you are looking at your subconscious creating weird images out of information. With DMT this is not the case, there is something so unique about it, an element of “reality” to it. And while you are in that state, you are almost completely sober of mind, mentally self aware, which makes it even weirder. It’s not like you are drunk and loopy and looking at funny shapes, it’s like you are your sober self, and you are being shown impossible structures, being communicated with by beings, and having ideas and information sent to you. As a catholic I don’t endorse it. While it may be something angelic, it very well could be demonic. I am almost positive that it’s NOT completely natural, material, and “just a drug”
If the Resurrection is actual history then why do the narratives look so much like a legend evolving? Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows: Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations. So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports). If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends.
Like what other legends exactly? I know of no other unless you mean the legend of a universe and of finite beings randomly evolving from absolutely nothing at all (a ‘no-thing’ that we’re convinced science a ‘something’ or perhaps aliens will explain one day). So if your right we’re not unique we’re random adaptively evolved animals with non-unique conscious awareness and language structures for nothing else other than the purpose of disagreeing with each other. Or perhaps we’re all in an evolutionary and adaptive process en route to becoming Gods who will one day be so mystical and awesome that we’ll burst into pure light and consciousness and bring another universe into existence and off we go again. I spent most of my life as an atheist then an agnostic and now I can’t make sense of a world where there is no God. Even if the resurrection and biblical accounts of miracles seem unbelievable without faith. Given you have so thoroughly examined certain aspects of scripture means somethings got you hooked otherwise it would have no resonance. The ethicity of the bibles teachings are oddly unparalleled and oddly piercing with respect to the human dilemma on meaning, purpose and existence. As much as the headline accounts verging on the impossible to comprehend the concept of resurrection isn’t for me the stuff of legends it’s the gravity and impact of it having emerged in the first place. There is no tangible benefit to a rational mind of believing in the supernatural but there’s every benefit and indeed validation for the soul and the very insistence that we have one. I’m no expert on theology or scripture obviously but perhaps Jimmy can sense check your assertions to that end. Or perhaps his silence is his answer not wanting to tread into overstatement only Jimmy knows. In the final analysis though there’s two brutal departure points either you believe or you don’t. I thank God today I believe it makes life’s beauty and brutality more relevant and rich.
@@TheTruthisWritteninyourHeart I'm not sure if you noticed but the appearances of Jesus evolve from the spiritual/mystical type in the only firsthand source to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven. It's pretty obvious that it's a legend.
You cite I Cor 15 but stop before the operative section. What does I Cor 15:12-23 mean? How is Jesus said to have defeated death? As spirit? Are all the dead referenced here to be raised merely in a ghost vision also ?
@@Jim-Mc They could have originally believed Jesus was physically resurrected but went immediately to heaven. Thus, all the "appearances" would have been thought of as spiritual appearances of Jesus from heaven similar to what we see in the descriptions of Paul's Damascus Road experience in Acts.
@@resurrectionnerd Isn't your original argument that the earliest accounts did not involve bodily resurrection, but that this evolved later, as evidenced by increasing physicality of appearances in later documents?
@@simsujemy "They were meeting every week on the first day of the week to celebrate resurrection." Where does your Bible say that, or should I take your word for it?
It is in Acts. They met on the Lord’s Day (his resurrection day). They werent meeting on the Sabbath. Also- for two thousand years, Catholics meet on Sunday to Celebrate Mass. That’s the term that has been used since - celebrate.
@cbooth151 Your bible has this too. Lol. Catholic new testament is exactly same as the protesters. Ya’ll just dropped a few OT books 1500 yrs later after the Catholic Church gave it to the world
I hope someday I become a Catholic apologist like you bro. Jim, bro. Scott, bro. Tim and others. I am a catechist right now. You all have inspired and supplied me my materials. Godbless you guys! Happy Easter!
You're very kind. Best of luck, and thank you for your service to the Church! Happy Easter!
How’s your journey going??
Can we get an update? Did you succeed? Here's hoping you did, man. Either way, God bless you :)
Happy Good Friday!
I wonder too if when the Apostle looks inside and “sees and believes” it was his reaction to seeing the shroud with the image of Jesus on it. Seeing that image he realized the was no theft- but a resurrection
If Jesus just "passed out" on the cross, that would mean he was essentially asleep on the cross. If he was asleep on the cross, wouldn't he have asphyxiated almost immediately if the asphyxiation theory of death is true?
Yes, exactly.
Thanks for this great episode. Although I am a Catholic and a believer in the resurrection of Jesus, one counter-argument that I'm surprised not to have encountered is that the disciples did have one worldly benefit from sticking to their story: prestige as leaders of the new community, even if the Gospel accounts are often unflattering to them. Has anyone ever made or answered this objection?
Hi! I'm also a catholic. I've heard similar questions and answers to them. If we look closely to what that means we know it holds no water. As human beings we pursue mainly 3 things, power, money and sex. The disciples didn't get any of these things, the prestige isn't something you naturally strive for unless it leads you to those three things,. you could see exemplifed in the pharisees, going after power, influence, etc. We, not only have the new testament accounts, but also the extra biblical writings, the majority suffered greatly and died as martyrs, penniless and powerless. Even Saint Paul describes losing his friends when facing trials, so much for that prestige. And if that is what the disciples won, then suffering and dying for it was a pretty dumb way of achieving it, wouldn't you think so?
I almost did a happy dance at work when this appeared. 😃😃😃😃
So sad. Im listening to it when I hear Lorraine Warren passed away. She and Ed would make a great episode.
I assume The Shroud will be it's own episode
@@davidarcudi230 Yes. The Shroud subject is so complex, it definitely needs its own episode.
These are great videos. Full of information.
Also, I love the interaction between Jimmy Akin & Steve Brule. ;)
Mr Akin… your shows are so interesting. Thanks very much
You're missing one natural explanation.
James Tabor said they probably moved the body in the night for burial because the very next day was a religious holiday I don't know the exact name of the holiday.
Thank you for another great episode. If you could add to your to-do list: "Fallen Idol: The Yuri Gagarin Conspiracy" narrated by Elliott Gould, available on Amazon. I'm not into conspiracy theories but I found this one both fascinating and convincing.
Thanks! I'll check it out!
Great show
@Jimmy Akin. How did you and Dom become friends?
Great episode!
Perfect for Easter 😊🙏
Great video
The advanced tech idea has no weight whatsoever since that time and people were not anywhere near that level of tech advancement
Hi all, and thanks for the fantastic work you're doing! I never miss an episode.
This episode, to me, misses the main point. Most my atheist friends would argue this story probably didn't happen or is made up. You start on the base that it happened, and pass very fast on why you're so sure of it.
I'd love to here more about historical pieces of evidence, because I don't know how to back this.
Thanks for the work you and Dom are putting in.
Basile (writing from China)
You never got an answer, but the facts that are undisputed by scholars are that:
1. Jesus lived and was crucified as reported
2. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah
3. His followers reported that they saw him alive after death.
Other interesting facts are that by the time Paul was writing, in the 40s, there were christian churches everywhere clinging to this story: that Jesus was raised from the death to abolish death and sin for mankind. Where did all these churches come from? The main-stream idea is that the disciples believed so strongly that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they went out into the world and proclaimed the gospel as reported in Acts. These are the facts from the first half of the 1st century that corroborate the event. Now, add to that what has happened the other 2 millennia on top of that (all kinds of miracles, the church, etc. etc.) and you have a strong case for christianity being true.
@@RK-dk5vt appreciate you took the time to share your knowledge here
Near the hallucination part, it was said that the disciples were not expecting the resurrection. I wonder - how did the Pharisees get word of the expectation for Jesus to rise (they mention it when they ask for guards at the tomb) and the disciples not remain expectant and hopeful??
Jesus had predicted his Resurrection. However, the disciples didn't understand him literally, as indicated by their questioning among themselves what "rising from the dead" might mean. The fact they react as they do (disbelieving in the case of Thomas, thinking the body was moved, not knowing what happened in the case of Peter, thinking they're seeing a ghost) confirms this. The Jewish authorities apparently took the statement more literally, or thought that the disciples might.
The Pharisees knew the prophecy regarding the resurrection.
Great video although at one point Jimmy says that no one was expecting the resurrection and then later he says Jesus told everyone He would resurrect. Which is true? Thanks
Greetings! I think what he says is, that no one expected the resurection until the end of times, not that they were not expecting anything all together
As much as the apostles were exposed to miracles, none of them actually believed Jesus would rise from the dead.
Yes they saw Jesus bring back other people from the dead … but there was no Jesus around to resurrect Jesus. As far as they were concerned without Jesus among them there would be no miraculous resurrection.
This is why the apostles betrayed Jesus and all but John didn’t watch his execution.
Mary knew Jesus was divine and she would have believed he would rise from the dead. That didn’t spare her from the pain of watching his passion.
Still listening to these series. Just wanted to share my thoughts brother Jim and brother Don. For me I believe the truthness of Jesus' resurrection is based on the purpose of the event. I could not and will not concoct wild ideas if you know the deep reason for it. But very entertaining that people would really go through all these absurd explanations just to deface Jesus. Hahaha!
The empty tomb, the Roman soldiers not being able to stop Jesus's Body from being "stolen". Seems like evidence enough for the public.
I would not have listened to these episodes if it wasnt called Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World…
Jimmy, random question: my testosterone is low and I am considering “testosterone replacement therapy” what’s your advice on the subject? And have you considered it your self. Thank you and love your work
If your doctor advises it and you can afford it, Catholic moral theology has no problem with you trying it. If it causes problems down the line then you would need to reevaluate whether it is for you, but there is no initial objection. I hope this helps, and God bless you!
Hi Jimmy,
I've been dying to know...Have you read Maria Valtorta? I'm currently reading the Lessons on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans...amazing!!
By the way according to Maria Valtorta, St. Thomas had a twin sister.
Be careful about Maria Valtorta's writings. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Valtorta#Holy_See's_reaction_to_publication
I don't know how you could work it into your schedule, but could you do a video about the problems with the Islamic interpretation of the crucifixion? I bring this up, because it's my understanding, that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was crucified , and that God made someone else look like Jesus, and he was crucified in his place. I can talk to non-believers about why Jesus must have rose from the dead, but that's a little harder to do with people who are taught that he was never crucified to begin with. Or if you can't do a video on it, could you refer me to a source that can help with that? I can defend my faith pretty well, but when it comes to Muslims, that's really hard, not because I don't know what I'm talking about, but because they won't accept the evidence.
Howdy, Adam! I'll see if there's a way to do this, but in the meantime, you might check out this book: amzn.to/2E6vHSP Hope it helps! God bless you!
But what are the odds that two people have that recognition disorder together on the road to Emmaus. Hehe I still believe Jesus wants us to focus on the Eucharist in preparation for His ascension or absence. Hehehe again boils down to the purpose of the story. Right?
❤
Sorry guys. You're rehearsing the false dycotamy of faith vs reason. All reason exercises faith at the assumptive or metaphysical level.
I think the women didn't recognize him/thought he was the gardener because he was undressed and they weren't looking. Modesty would have required it. A gardener would be minimally clad and Jesus would have left burial shroud behind.
Jesus would not have had a problem manifesting clothing. There was no way he would have presented himself to Mary Magdalene, a woman, in the nude. And clearly he was clothed on the Road to Emmaus and when he appeared to the Apostles.
@@lorraineklimek1677 No doubt. However the clothing of Jewish workmen in the ancient Mediterranean vs Gentiles is a bit of a mystery, since Greeks often worked nude or nearly so. Jews wouldn't have, but it remains in question how much or how little Jewish fishermen, builders, or gardeners would have worn in contrast their Gentile neighbors. So this is where I got the notion of how he might have been momentarily mistaken for a gardener.
Jimmy! Can you look at DMT and mechanical gnomes/elves? What are these things? Psychedelic experiences real, or totally internal? Trust me this is a thing.....lol.
I know! I've been thinking about doing an episode on DMT and similar substances for a while. I'll add it to the list! :-)
I'm curious what...any of this means.
Lucid Locomotive
I’ve done it. It was without a doubt the most intense and strange experience of my life, it was as strange as life itself. Usually dreams and hallucinations have an element of “delusion” to them, where you can tell that you are looking at your subconscious creating weird images out of information. With DMT this is not the case, there is something so unique about it, an element of “reality” to it. And while you are in that state, you are almost completely sober of mind, mentally self aware, which makes it even weirder. It’s not like you are drunk and loopy and looking at funny shapes, it’s like you are your sober self, and you are being shown impossible structures, being communicated with by beings, and having ideas and information sent to you. As a catholic I don’t endorse it. While it may be something angelic, it very well could be demonic. I am almost positive that it’s NOT completely natural, material, and “just a drug”
Have you ever considered TRT jimmy?
Lol what made you ask this?
Fatima is even more well attested than the resurrection
If the Resurrection is actual history then why do the narratives look so much like a legend evolving? Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows:
Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.
Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.
John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations. So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).
If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends.
Like what other legends exactly? I know of no other unless you mean the legend of a universe and of finite beings randomly evolving from absolutely nothing at all (a ‘no-thing’ that we’re convinced science a ‘something’ or perhaps aliens will explain one day).
So if your right we’re not unique we’re random adaptively evolved animals with non-unique conscious awareness and language structures for nothing else other than the purpose of disagreeing with each other. Or perhaps we’re all in an evolutionary and adaptive process en route to becoming Gods who will one day be so mystical and awesome that we’ll burst into pure light and consciousness and bring another universe into existence and off we go again. I spent most of my life as an atheist then an agnostic and now I can’t make sense of a world where there is no God. Even if the resurrection and biblical accounts of miracles seem unbelievable without faith. Given you have so thoroughly examined certain aspects of scripture means somethings got you hooked otherwise it would have no resonance. The ethicity of the bibles teachings are oddly unparalleled and oddly piercing with respect to the human dilemma on meaning, purpose and existence. As much as the headline accounts verging on the impossible to comprehend the concept of resurrection isn’t for me the stuff of legends it’s the gravity and impact of it having emerged in the first place. There is no tangible benefit to a rational mind of believing in the supernatural but there’s every benefit and indeed validation for the soul and the very insistence that we have one. I’m no expert on theology or scripture obviously but perhaps Jimmy can sense check your assertions to that end. Or perhaps his silence is his answer not wanting to tread into overstatement only Jimmy knows. In the final analysis though there’s two brutal departure points either you believe or you don’t. I thank God today I believe it makes life’s beauty and brutality more relevant and rich.
@@TheTruthisWritteninyourHeart I'm not sure if you noticed but the appearances of Jesus evolve from the spiritual/mystical type in the only firsthand source to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven. It's pretty obvious that it's a legend.
You cite I Cor 15 but stop before the operative section. What does I Cor 15:12-23 mean? How is Jesus said to have defeated death? As spirit? Are all the dead referenced here to be raised merely in a ghost vision also ?
@@Jim-Mc They could have originally believed Jesus was physically resurrected but went immediately to heaven. Thus, all the "appearances" would have been thought of as spiritual appearances of Jesus from heaven similar to what we see in the descriptions of Paul's Damascus Road experience in Acts.
@@resurrectionnerd Isn't your original argument that the earliest accounts did not involve bodily resurrection, but that this evolved later, as evidenced by increasing physicality of appearances in later documents?
moogoogaipan but cheated,skipped to end early!
Then Peter passed a joint 😂
Who in the Bible celebrated Jesus' resurrection? NOBODY!!
What? They were meeting every week on the first day of the week to celebrate resurrection 😃
@@simsujemy "They were meeting every week on the first day of the week to celebrate resurrection."
Where does your Bible say that, or should I take your word for it?
You can easily look it up @@cbooth151
It is in Acts. They met on the Lord’s Day (his resurrection day). They werent meeting on the Sabbath. Also- for two thousand years, Catholics meet on Sunday to Celebrate Mass. That’s the term that has been used since - celebrate.
@cbooth151 Your bible has this too. Lol. Catholic new testament is exactly same as the protesters. Ya’ll just dropped a few OT books 1500 yrs later after the Catholic Church gave it to the world