God himself has risen from the dead and appeared in a transformed, heavenly body to the earliest Christians. Yet, Christianity forgot to record where this first appearance occurred, when it occurred, and to whom it occurred! If you look in the Gospels, the first appearance mentioned is different in each Gospel. Even if you choose to ignore the Gospels and follow the eyewitness list in the Early Creed, the Church forgot to record any details about Jesus’ alleged first appearance to Simon Peter. Where and when did this appearance occur? Why no details?
Seriously? Christians forgot to record for posterity the greatest event in human history?? Isn’t that pretty strong evidence that the resurrection appearances are legends and rumors?
First Appearance in the Gospel of Mark: None. There are no appearances mentioned in the original Gospel of Mark. A young man at the empty tomb tells a group of women that the risen Jesus will meet his disciples in Galilee.
First Appearance in the Gospel of Matthew: Jesus appears to a group of women, in the Garden of Gethsemane, on Easter Sunday. Jesus tells the women to tell the male disciples to meet him in Galilee.
First Appearance in the Gospel of Luke: Jesus appears to two lesser disciples on the Emmaus Road. They are not part of the Eleven. These two disciples then return to Jerusalem and inform the Eleven (which would include Simon Peter):
They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Why would these two guys inform Peter (gathered with the other Ten) that Jesus had just appeared to Peter?? Sure sounds like a hasty addition to an established legend, maybe an addition to make this story corroborate with the Early Creed, in which the first appearance is to Simon Peter.
Shortly thereafter that same day, Jesus appears to all the disciples, shows them his wounds, eats a broiled fish lunch with them, gives a sermon, then leads them all to Bethany where he is “taken up” into heaven. What happened to meeting them in Galilee??
First Appearance in the Gospel of John: Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone, in the Garden, on Easter Sunday. That evening he appears to the Eleven, in Jerusalem, even though Matthew and Mark indicate his first appearance to the male disciples was in Galilee.
First Appearance in the Early Creed: Jesus appears to “Cephas”, presumably Simon Peter. Where? We are not told. When? We are not told. Details? None.
Conclusion: Christians liken the four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection to that of multiple eyewitnesses testifying to an auto accident: Some of the details will differ among the various eyewitnesses but the central facts will corroborate. But the Appearance Stories are NOT like an auto accident. Each story is of a different “auto accident”! None of the first appearance stories above describe the same “Jesus sighting”!
Isn’t it obvious? These are legends, folks. These are tall tales!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Gary, as I keep saying in the other threads, you’re dismissing the NT gospel resurrection appearances because the gospel authors did not write like a modern, 21st century historian, * and, further *because the gospel authors *did not bother to answer all of the questions modern skeptics might possibly raise.
Is this fair? No, it isn’t fair to hold ancient cultures responsible for not writing history according to modern standards.
The ancients often don’t write in linear, chronological order the way we do; they felt free to arrange their material to suit the needs of their intended audience or occasion.
Thus they often skip as unimportant such details as a subject’s early life, which we would view as important (that’s why only two of four gospels record Jesus’ birth and none of them say much about his formative years.).
As I’ve said to you and Nan, for all practical purposes, who was the first person to see the risen Jesus, when and where is irrelevant. That the gospels record appearances at all is the take-away from these stories. You’re missing the forest for the trees.
And the fact the gospels record women, any women, as the first witnesses to its central miracle argues strongly that these stories aren’t fabrications, because no Jewish males making up such stories they hoped to pass off as credible would purposely invent women witness to the resurrection. And indeed, the second century AD critic of Christianity Celsus, objected to Christianity on just such grounds (and others, too): that the first witness to the resurrection was a hysterical woman. Celsus found such a claim hard to believe.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Raymond Brown, a moderate Roman Catholic NT scholar says there is embellishment present in the Appearance Stories. Richard Bauckham, a conservative Protestant NT scholar says there is embellishment in the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the calling of the apostle Matthew! So it isn’t just me. It isn’t just atheists. You can appeal to modern studies of oral cultures all you want, Lee, but you cannot prove that first century Jews did not allow rumor and legend into their oral stories. Even the Bible gives evidence they did! While Jesus was alive, the rumor was circulating that he was the resurrected John the Baptist. So even the Bible proves your assumption wrong!
LikeLiked by 1 person
GARY: Lee, but you cannot prove that first century Jews did not allow rumor and legend into their oral stories. Even the Bible gives evidence they did! While Jesus was alive, the rumor was circulating that he was the resurrected John the Baptist. So even the Bible proves your assumption wrong!
LEE: Gary, these are two different things. Whether or not Jesus was John the Baptist wasn’t sacred Jewish tradition.
Nobody, least of all, me, is saying that ancient Jews never circulated rumors or spread inaccurate information. What I am saying, what everyone, including *Bauckham would agree with, is that important oral tradition was passed on accurately.
And you seem to think that “embellish” necessarily = “lie.” It doesn’t.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Lee: What I am saying, what everyone, including *Bauckham would agree with, is that important oral tradition was passed on accurately.
Gary: Would you consider the story of Matthew’s calling as one of the Twelve an oral tradition?
Lee: And you seem to think that “embellish” necessarily = “lie.” It doesn’t.
Gary: Embellish means to add fictional details to a story. Embellishments were acceptable in first century Greco-Roman literature. I never once used the word “lie”.
LikeLike
But how do you distinguish (outside of your several books) that “important oral tradition was passed on accurately”?
If the Bible is true, it would seem it should be the final source of information related to your beliefs about Jesus and his teachings — instead of allowing (so many) others to influence your perspective. (And this holds true for those on the other side as well.)
I agree authors can often help clarify scripture and/or provide biblical history, but why should they be allowed to have the final say on any biblical matter?
LikeLike
NAN: But how do you distinguish (outside of your several books) that “important oral tradition was passed on accurately”?
LEE: Nan, studies have been done by anthropologists and scholars of NT oral tradition which demonstrate that such is the case. As JP Moreland says, this was sacred tradition, not what Bob was having for dinner Wednesday night. Otherwise how did these societies survive, if there were no way to accurately pass on news or history?
Westerners have largely lost the ability to do this because for the past 400 years we’ve been a print-based society; and now, with the internet, Facebook, cell-phones, etc. it’s only getting worse.
NAN: If the Bible is true, it would seem it should be the final source of information related to your beliefs about Jesus and his teachings — instead of allowing (so many) others to influence your perspective. (And this holds true for those on the other side as well.)
I agree authors can often help clarify scripture and/or provide biblical history, but why should they be allowed to have the final say on any biblical matter?
LEE: Nan, the Bible is the final authority however it doesn’t contain a built-in interpretive manual.
Whatever else it may be, the book we call “the Bible” is, first and foremost, a collection of ancient historical documents. I don’t speak or read Hebrew and only know enough Greek and Latin to be dangerous. And I grew up in NW AL, not ancient Palestine or Ephesus. Thus, to insure that we interpret those documents accurately is where academic scholars come in.
Before I can discern what a text of scripture is saying to me I first have to try to discern what it was saying to its original audience, because as a former pastor of mine used to correctly say, “The bible was written for us, but not to us.” Scripture was written in multiple genres: history (I Kings and the four gospels); poetry (the Psalms); allegory; metaphor; apocalyptic (parts of Daniel; Matt. 24 and Mark 13; Revelation); etc.
The NT was written to people across several largely oral ancient Mediterranean cultures; their approaches to historiography are/were much different than ours. Skeptics often seem to forget this. For example, Gary wants to hold the gospel evangelists guilty for writing like ancient historians instead of like modern skeptics.
Is that fair? Of course not! Might as well criticize Galileo for not mentioning the red shift of stars in his treatises.
The Bible is the final authority however it doesn’t contain a built-in interpretive manual. Before I can discern what a text of scripture is saying to me I first have to try to discern what it was saying to its original audience, because as a former pastor of mine used to correctly say, “The bible was written for us, but not to us.”
Basically, the Bible should be interpreted according to the rules we’d use to interpret any other collection of ancient near-Eastern texts.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
As you wrote: “The Bible is the final authority however it doesn’t contain a built-in interpretive manual.”
And this is the exact reason why so many take the liberty of “explaining” what it all means … from 1000+1 perspectives. Then people like you and others base your faith and rely upon what THEY say rather than letting the words speak to you personally.
As I’ve expressed before, I have no faith that these writings are anything but legends and stories that ancient people used in their attempts to explain “life” — but for those who are under the impression they contain “truth,” then it seems the writings themselves should be the ultimate source of that truth.
LikeLike