Bart Ehrman, and the Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Part 1)

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar at the University of North Carolina who is most famous for his books, Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted, and his most recent one, How Jesus Became God. At some point down the line, I hope to specifically address How Jesus Became God, but here in the next couple posts, I’d like to address some of the more general claims Dr. Ehrman routinely makes regarding Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

When it gets right down to it, what Ehrman essentially argues throughout many of his books on Jesus is this: (1) we don’t have the original manuscripts of the four gospels, (2) the thousands of copies that we do have all have differences (these are called “textual variants”), and therefore (3) you can’t really trust anything you read in the New Testament because it is not reliable. That’s basically the core thesis of most of his books. When you further consider that 99% of the textual variants found in the New Testament are of little or no importance, and have absolutely no impact on the reading or understanding of the New Testament, that makes it even more surprising: he’s saying the New Testament isn’t historically reliable because 1% of the textual variants actually impacts the reading of the text.

For the record, the two most obvious textual “problems” that have merit are the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11, and the longer ending in Mark 16:9-20. In both cases a good argument can be made that neither section was probably part of the original gospel. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the longer ending of Mark that cannot be found in the other gospels, and there is nothing in the story of the woman caught in adultery that goes against anything theologically in the New Testament.

But by in large, that’s about it. There simply isn’t much else in the New Testament that has any significant degree of inconsistency or meaningful variation. So, if that is the case, how has Dr. Ehrman managed to write so many books about the apparent “contradictions” in the New Testament? The answer is that he does not just focus on these limited examples. What he does is point to other apparent “contradictions” in the New Testament that are actually not contradictions at all.

Simply put, I think Dr. Ehrman’s problem is one that is common to many scholars: although undoubtedly very good at historical criticism and grammar, etc., he proves that he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t value the literary artistry of the gospel writers. It is almost like getting a PhD in English Literature, and being so focused on pointing out all the possible sources Shakespeare used to write Romeo and Juliet, and being able to point out every variation in the earliest manuscripts we possess, that you forget to actually read and enjoy Romeo and Juliet as a play.

In any case, in a past debate with Dr. Craig Evans, Ehrman made a number of claims regarding what he considers to be the unreliability of the New Testament. I am simply going to summarize some of his main arguments, and then provide my own response.

Point #1: Contradictions
In response to the question, “Are the gospels historically reliable?” Dr. Ehrman claimed, among other things, that there are contradictions (a) in the genealogies, (b) in timing of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, (c) about when Jesus died, (d) about when the stone was rolled away, (e) about who was at the empty tomb, and (f) about when the disciples went to Galilee.

Dr. Ehrman’s flaw in his reasoning lies in the fact that he clearly does not have an accurate understanding as to what the gospels are. Simply put, he assumes that the gospels are intended to be simply straightforward history, similar to how a modern writer might write an autobiography of a famous figure: very chronological, very linear, and a “just the facts” kind of writing. On top of that, it seems clear to me that the fundamentalist background in which Ehrman had initially gotten saved but now rejects, still nevertheless colors his understanding of the gospels.

He makes it very clear that he rejects the notion that the New Testament was some sort of scientifically accurate document that came directly from the mouth of God. That’s great—most biblical scholars and Christians for that matter don’t believe that either. The fact is, the Bible that Ehrman rejects is more a figment of the fundamentalist imagination than it is the actual Bible that we read.

When Ehrman claims that there are “contradictions” in the New Testament, he is coming from a literalistic foundation that ironically is rooted in the scientific-humanism of the Enlightenment. Simply put, his starting position for understanding what the New Testament is, is flawed. The gospels are not some sort of ancient newspaper articles that are trying to give “just the facts.” They are prophetic interpretations that bear witness to the historical events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, yes, they have an agenda—they are trying to convince their readers that Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant promises that God had made to Abraham and Israel in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they are still rooted in history, prophetic in their interpretation, and literary in their genre. What this means is that they are not just “giving facts”—they use literary and artistic license in their works. Therefore, what Ehrman calls “contradictions” are simply different brushstrokes on different canvases.

The Genealogies
Take for instance the genealogies—neither Matthew nor Luke were attempting to give a comprehensive and fully “accurate” genealogy of Jesus. Matthew’s purpose was to highlight Jesus’ lineage within the family of Abraham, whereas Luke’s purpose was to link Jesus to all of humanity. Neither one was trying to do a genealogy that would pass muster on Ancestory.com. They were doing Christology, and using their genealogies to say something about Jesus’ identity; they weren’t trying to give a complete and historically accurate family line of Jesus. That may sound strange to our ears, but it would be completely understandable to their original audiences.

When Was the Last Supper? When Did Jesus Die?
As for when Jesus died, the question that comes up in on what day did Jesus actually die? Was it the actually eve of Passover or the day before? John says it was before the Feast of Passover, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke say it was the day of Unleavened Bread itself, when the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Ehrman would like to have us believe that not only is this a clear contradiction, but that it somehow completely challenges the trustworthiness of the accounts. Let’s not forget, whether or not the meal took place the day before Passover or on Passover itself, all gospel writers agree: there was a meal, it was during that Passover week, and Jesus was arrested and crucified within the following day after the meal. None of the major historical and theological points are disputed. The debate over which day the meal happened has been addressed by many scholars, and many have made a convincing case that even on this specific point, that there isn’t a real contradiction.

I’m inclined to think that John was being more specific as to when the meal happened than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Let’s give an illustration: my family has the Christmas tradition of opening our gifts on Christmas Eve. If I say, “Last year when we opened our gifts at Christmas, I got a shirt,” but my brother says, “Last year, when we opened our gifts on Christmas Eve, Joel got a shirt,” are those two statements contradictory? I don’t think so.

The Women at the Tomb
As for the other apparent contradictions Ehrman claims, the above analogy can apply. John said Mary went to the tomb, Luke said it was the women from Galilee, Mark said it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and Matthew said it was the Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Are these really contradictions, or is what we have is simply the different writers choosing to tell this event in a slightly different way? If John had said, Mary…and only Mary…went to the tomb,” and then Mark had said, “Salome went, but Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were definitely not there,”—well, that would be a contradiction. But that is not what we have here. Ehrman is simply misrepresenting the facts and is denying the literary freedom the gospels writers employed in their gospels.

Point #2: Did the Gospels Preserve Jesus’ Teachings Accurately?
In response to the question, “Do the gospels accurately preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ?” Ehrman claimed that even contradictions in minor details means that the gospels are unreliable. Therefore, if the Bible is inaccurate in some minor details, then it’s all unreliable.

Jesus’ Self-Disclosure
He then pointed out that in the gospel of John, Jesus actually calls himself God and sees himself as divine (what is known as “high Christology”), whereas such statements are absent in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Ehrman’s point is simple: Matthew, Mark, and Luke “contradict” the claims of John.

First off, Ehrman’s claim that if there are minor variations in details then “the whole thing is unreliable” is, in my opinion, very uncritical. Such thinking is on par with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum who thinks if Genesis 1 isn’t scientifically accurate, and if it wasn’t a literal seven days, then we can’t believe anything in the Bible. Such a mentality betrays a very extreme fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. I find it ironic, therefore, that although Ehrman has rejected the fundamentalism of his youth, his approach to the Bible is still very much influenced by that very same fundamentalism.

Secondly, as for John’s high Christology and the other gospel writers’ low Christology, again Ehrman overstates his case. Yes, John makes explicit what the other writers make implicit. And yes, I don’t necessarily think that John is directly quoting every exact word of Jesus (for instance in John 13-18—that’s one long discourse!). Yes, it seems odd that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Jesus is constantly telling his followers to keep a tight lip as to who he is, whereas in John, Jesus is openly making claims of equality with the Father. But this is where we need to consider not only the time and setting when the gospels were written, but again, the literary artistry each writer employed.

The Historical Impetus for the Writing of the Synoptics and John
I believe that the impetus for the writing of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (all written around 70 AD) was the destruction of the Temple and city. Just like Jeremiah had been vindicated as a true prophet of God when his prophecy of the Temple’s destruction in 587 BC came true, in a similar way Jesus’ identity as Messiah had also been vindicated when his prophecy of the Temple’s destruction came true in 70 AD. Up to that point, although the early Christian community had begun to take root, there was still a lot of uncertainty and debate within the Jewish community concerning Jesus. Yes, there was rejection by many Jews (particularly those in authority) of the apostles’ Gospel, but the early community had attracted Jewish followers.

When the Temple was destroyed, though, the early Christian community felt this signaled the vindication of Jesus’ identity on a nationwide scale: what he prophesied had come true. The Synoptic gospels, therefore, were sort of the “official written announcements” that summarized the early Church’s proclamation about Jesus’ Gospel over the past 40 years. Therefore, the “messianic secret” we see in the Synoptics reflects the uncertainty within the Jewish community concerning Jesus. And yes, I feel that Jesus’ “secret” was, if you will, more “historically accurate,” if you will. But John wasn’t trying to write the way Matthew, Mark, and Luke did. He was obviously a bit more creative in his presentation—and that is entirely okay.

The Gospel of John was written around 90 AD, and by that time there had developed a clear and distinctive separation between the rabbinic Judaism and the growing Christian movement that came out of the Temple’s destruction. Therefore, when John wrote his gospel, his intent was to highlight that clear and distinctive choice in a much more creative manner. Therefore, I’m inclined to think that John exercised artistic license and essentially put on Jesus’ lips the explicit statements about his divinity. This is not to say, though, that Jesus didn’t “really” see himself as divine. The ability to forgive sins, to command the wind and sea, etc. (i.e. scenes found in the Synoptics) implicitly point to Jesus’ divine status and Jesus’ self-understanding as God’s unique Son. John simply brought the whole issue to the forefront of his gospel.

Therefore, the fact that John actually has Jesus saying, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” whereas the other gospel writers have Jesus downplaying his divine status in public, is not a contradiction. How one presents the message of Jesus greatly depends on the time and setting of when that person writes his gospel. Perhaps the better way to distinguish between John and the Synoptics should not be to distinguish between “high” and “low” Christology, but rather “explicit high Christology” and “implicit high Christology.”

Tomorrow, I will post “Part 2” of Dr. Ehrman’s basic arguments. If you can’t wait though, enjoy this video clip from The Colbert Report, when Stephen Colbert interviews Bart Ehrman.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yji71b/the-colbert-report-bart-ehrman

 

51 Comments

  1. “I’m inclined to think that John was being more specific as to when the meal happened than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Let’s give an illustration: my family has the Christmas tradition of opening our gifts on Christmas Eve. If I say, “Last year when we opened our gifts at Christmas, I got a shirt,” but my brother says, “Last year, when we opened our gifts on Christmas Eve, Joel got a shirt,” are those two statements contradictory? I don’t think so.”

    This is a really good point in response to what Ehrman is claiming. It is possible, I suppose, that the Gospel writers were using the term “Passover” in the same flippant manner as we use the word “Christmas.” It can refer to the literal day or the time close to the day.

  2. If the Gospels are historically reliable, as you claim, Joel, then there should be agreement among the four Gospels regarding the MAJOR details of important events in the Jesus Story. Differences in minor details can be chalked up to normal lapses in memory, but the important details about major events should corroborate. Any court of law would demand that. In addition, Christians claim that first century Jews, being an oral culture, maintained the meticulous accuracy of their oral stories. So why is it, then, that the four Gospels do not agree upon when, where, and who first discovered the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb? If the early Christians couldn’t correctly maintain the accuracy of that major event, why should we trust them with the accuracy of the rest of their tall tales?

    https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2024/10/06/when-did-the-women-realize-the-tomb-was-empty/

    1. This IS agreement regarding the MAJOR events of Jesus’ life: his teaching, his Passion Week, arrest, crucifixion, death, and resurrection. They all attest to those things happening. As for your example: the fact of the resurrection is a MAJOR event/detail; who were the women who discovered the empty tomb is more of a minor detail–and even then, there is overlap among the Gospels.

      Simply put, the Gospels fulfill your stated requirements: agreement on major events, and “blurriness” on some of the minor details. But what you are REALLY demanding is 100% clarity in every minor detail before you will concede the Gospels are historically reliable.

          1. Please give us a brief synopsis how a Bible scholar like yourself knows that the Story of Jesus’ Triumphal entry into Jerusalem as King of the Jews is absolute historical fact.

            “The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” ” –The Gospel of John

          2. In my studies, in everything I read, Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday was one of those things scholars generally held not to be in dispute.

          3. So you would encourage your readers to accept as fact any claim for which there is an expert majority in support of it?

          4. Eh….I’m just pointing out that among experts, Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday is accepted as historically true. He really did that. If you want to go full conspiracy theory and reject scholarly consensus, you’re free to do so.

          5. No, I accept expert consensus opinion on all issues. Do you?

            I specifically wanted to know how you arrive at your beliefs for which parts of the Gospels are historical and which parts are non-historical. You have said you use majority/consensus expert opinion. Is that your only criterion?

            The majority of experts do not believe that “Matthew’s” story of “Dead Saints Shaken Alive out of their Graves” or his story of “Guards at the Tomb” are historical. Do you accept those majority expert positions?

    1. The fact is this: If we use your standard of accepting majority expert opinion then we must accept the majority expert opinion that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses nor by associates of eyewitnesses nor by anyone of the same generation as the disciples of Jesus.
      See here: https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

      There is no evidence that any of Jesus’ disciples wrote down a word of what Jesus said or did. All our information about him comes from hearsay. Some of that hearsay may contain eyewitness testimony, some of it may contain embellishments (fiction). Since it is hearsay, there is no way to know which stories in the Gospels are 100% historical, part historical/part fiction, or 100% fiction. It is not all or none, as you seem to assert.

      If Jesus did not enter Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to a cheering great crowd, hailing him as the new Jewish king, what difference would it make? None. But what about the stories of alleged post-death appearances of Jesus? What if those stories are fictional embellishments? What if the original Jesus sightings all involved talking bright lights, as described by Paul in detailing his Jesus appearance experience to King Agrippa (Acts 26)? That would be devastating for the believability of the core claim of Christianity, wouldn’t it? The historicity of the Resurrection would come down to believing in the existence of talking bright lights. That would be devastating. And that is why you obfuscate so desperately to answer this simple question.

      1. Honest question for you: do you obsess this much over deciphering between the “historical elements and fictional elements” when you watch a dramatic movie about a historical event or person?

        1. If I am told by a majority of people in my culture that if I do not believe in a particular historical person’s resurrection from the dead, and refuse to worship this allegedly resurrected historical person’s ghost as my Lord and Master, that I will spend all eternity being tortured in some fashion by that historical person, your damn right I would.

          1. Go onto the blogs of ex-Muslims and ex-Mormons: If you ask them what their biggest concern was about deconverting from Islam or Mormonism it will be the fear of divine eternal punishment. This is why supernatural beliefs must be exposed as false. They have brainwashed little children and gullible adults to believe in the Boogeyman.

          2. Maybe you should focus first on what the biblical texts actually are, how they function, and what they actually teach, rather than attacking them with childish hyper-skepticism as a backlash against equally childish misinterpretations of them.

          3. What percentage of modern Christian pastors/priests and theologians teach that refusing and rejecting belief/faith in Jesus the Christ as one’s Lord and Savior will result in eternal punishment?

  3. When Christianity becomes a movement which consists solely in following the humanistic teachings of Jesus, it will have my full support. But as long as Christianity teaches any form of punishment for non-belief, I will oppose it. Punishment for what one believes (thought crimes) is as undemocratic as one can get.

    1. Again, maybe you should try to understand what the various biblical texts are actually teaching, rather than just assume the ravings of Fundie pastors represent historical Christian teaching. Heck, just try to understand the Bible on its own terms and stop trying to pronounce judgment on it. You’re attacking caricatures and windmills.

      1. I agree with you that it is accepted historical fact that Jesus existed; that he was crucified; and that shortly after his death some of his followers sincerely believed that he appeared to them, in some fashion. But what if all the eyewitnesses originally claimed to have seen only what Paul says he saw on the Damascus Road (Acts 26): a talking bright light! What if the original Jesus sightings all involved seeing a bright light and interpreting it as a divine appearance of Jesus? If Blomberg is correct (and most mainstream scholars say he is) authors of historical writings in the first century sometimes embellished historical facts with fiction. If one believes that the resurrected Jesus had truly appeared to people (as a bright light) would it have been a “lie” in the first century to embellish these sightings with a touchable, broiled fish eating, resurrected body?? I don’t know.

        1. You are not honestly engaging with the biblical text, Gary. And you’re purposely twisting what Bloomberg is saying. You’re not acting in good faith. You’re not wrestling with what the Gospels are actually teaching. That’s why it is so tiresome talking to you. I’m just not interested anymore.

          1. Is it possible that some of the appearances of the resurrected Jesus mentioned in First Corinthians 15 involved the sighting of a bright light?

  4. If Paul could see a bright light on a dark desert highway and believe that he had seen a resurrected person, every alleged appearance of Jesus listed in the Early Creed could have involved seeing a bright light. The appearance stories in the Gospels may well be later embellishments to the Jesus Story.

    This is what you don’t want to discuss because you know it is devastating for Christian apologetics.

    1. But that is not the testimony we have in the Gospels. There’s nothing to discuss. Even though Acts mentions bright light, Paul himself says he SAW JESUS. And the Gospels all testify they the disciples SAW JESUS AND TALKED WITH HIM.

      For all your bloviating, your “skepticism” amounts to “Nu-uh!”

      1. 1. Even Craig Blomberg admits that first century authors writing historical documents sometimes embellished their stories. The Gospel authors were not writing purely historical documents. They were writing “so that you might believe”. Therefore, it is possible that the Gospel authors embellished the Jesus Story.

        2. Paul never claims to have seen a body. If the author of Acts accurately recorded Paul’s testimony before Agrippa, all Paul saw was a bright light. Paul believed the bright light was the resurrected Jesus, proving that one does not need to see a body to believe a resurrected being has appeared to him. For you to claim that Paul saw Jesus at another time, this time in bodily form, is pure invention. You have no evidence whatsoever.

        3. Paul lists his Jesus appearance experience in a list of eyewitnesses to other alleged resurrected Jesus appearances in First Corinthians 15. He did not state that “I only saw a bright light but the other eyewitness saw a walking, talking, broiled fish eating body”. He makes no distinction between his appearance experience and that of the others. Therefore, all appearances listed in the Early Creed could have involved seeing a bright light.

        4. You assume that the Gospels are 100% historically accurate. You are holding a first century document to 21st century biographical standards. First century authors had a different standard that modern biographers. As long as the core fact was intact, embellishments were allowed and even expected. The core fact was that some early Christians did believe that the resurrected Jesus appeared to them…in some fashion. Based on Paul’s own testimony in Acts 26 and the wording of the Early Creed, all original Jesus sightings may have involved bright lights. The evidence is right there in the Christian Scriptures!

        1. 1. You completely misrepresent Bloomberg. And no scholar claims the Gospels are newspaper reports and “just the facts.” They all acknowledge literary artistry. That does not mean they think the Gospel writers were “making things up.”

          2. 1 Corinthians 9:1: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” And every resurrection account in the Gospels emphasizes Jesus’s actual physicality–his disciples saw him, spoke with him, ate with him, touched him. You, though, purposely ignore all that, and instead pick only the bits that you can easily twist by ignoring the full context.

          3. 1 Corinthians 15–yes. But contrary to what you are absurdly claiming, Paul is emphasizing that he saw the resurrected Christ, just like the others did. So yes, if he makes no distinction, and if all the other accounts 100% claim real physicality….then….

          4. No, I have never claimed the Gospels “are 100% accurate” in some kind of modern 21st century sense. I have always said they are about real historical people and events, they are historically reliable, and still the authors used literary artistry in the way they shaped their stories. Example: Matthew has two demonics of the Geresenes, Mark has one–Matthew has literary reasons for having it two demonics. Whether it was 1 or 2 ultimately doesn’t matter. Both stories claim Jesus cast demons of of people while in the Geresenes.

          1. Matthew’s story of dead people walking the streets of Jerusalem is an embellishment in the minds of most modern Bible scholars. If you believe this event literally happened, you are a fundamentalist. Even very conservative evangelical scholar Mike Licona does not believe this event is historical. You may believe that Matthew never intended this story to be understood literally; that he wrote it is an allegory but an allegory is still fiction. It is still a case of Matthew inventing a story out of whole cloth. If Matthew can invent dead saints wandering the streets of a major first century city on Easter Sunday, Luke can invent a story of another dead person popping in for a broiled fish lunch later that day. To insist that all the resurrection appearance stories are absolute historical fact is just ridiculous if one admits that Matthew’s Story of dead saints shaken out of their graves is fiction (allegory).

  5. Do you believe that Acts 26 accurately records the historical details of Jesus’ alleged appearance to Paul on the Damascus Road? Yes or no?

  6. Anderson: 1 Corinthians 9:1: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” And every resurrection account in the Gospels emphasizes Jesus’s actual physicality–his disciples saw him, spoke with him, ate with him, touched him. You, though, purposely ignore all that, and instead pick only the bits that you can easily twist by ignoring the full context.

    There is no evidence of anyone claiming to have seen a walking/talking/touchable/fish eating body in any document known to humankind until the Gospels of Matthew and Luke written in the 70s or 80s. That is 40-50 years after Jesus’ death. By then, all the disciples may have been dead. All the eyewitnesses may have been dead. You have ZERO evidence that the original witnesses claimed to see a body. ALL the Gospel post-resurrection appearance stories may be no more historical than Matthew’s tale of dead people shaken alive out of their graves.

        1. No, clear-minded people who get frustrated over a person’s willful stupidity eventually just call it like it is.

  7. Anderson: 3. 1 Corinthians 15–yes. But contrary to what you are absurdly claiming, Paul is emphasizing that he saw the resurrected Christ, just like the others did. So yes, if he makes no distinction, and if all the other accounts 100% claim real physicality….then….

    Gary: Paul emphasizes that he saw “the Christ”. That is all Paul emphasizes in ANY of his epistles. He never claims to have seen a body. He never claims that anyone else saw a body. He claims that the Christ appeared to several people and groups. That’s it. You are inserting the Appearance Stories found in the Gospels into the Early Creed due to a bias, not due to evidence.

    There is NO evidence that any undisputed eyewitness to a resurrected Jesus sighting claimed to see a BODY. You are assuming they did. There is no evidence that anyone prior to the authors of Matthew and Luke claimed that Jesus appeared to people in a body. You are assuming he did. And you know what they say about assuming…

    1. He clearly claims that Jesus was raised PHYSICALLY, that he saw Jesus, and that if Jesus had not been resurrected, then the Christian faith is worthless.

      You know this. Stop being willfully stupid.

      1. I too believe that Paul believed that Jesus was bodily resurrected. But so what? You believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected and you have never seen his resurrected body. Allegedly the Jews in Asia Minor believed in the Resurrection without ever seeing Jesus’ resurrected body.

        The question is: Must one see a resurrected body to believe a resurrected person has appeared to you? Paul’s testimony in Acts 26 give us the answer: No! Paul saw a bright light and communicated with that bright light believing it to be the bodily resurrected Jesus of Nazareth. Paul converted on the basis of communicating with a talking bright light. He converted without seeing a body! You have zero evidence that proves otherwise.

        1. Again, willfull stupidity and self-imposed ignorance. Paul literally said, “Have I not seen the Lord?” The reason why Christianity even got off the ground is because the original followers encountered, saw, and interacted with the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth.

          Please stop bull-shitting yourself.

          1. Do you believe that Acts 26 accurately records the historical details of Jesus’ alleged appearance to Paul on the Damascus Road? Yes or no?

          2. I don’t know, but he makes the clear claim that he did, in fact, SEE the resurrected Jesus.

            Let’s see how consistent and honest you are. I’ve just accepted that Acts 26 says Paul was blinded, as you are insisting he was. Glad to see you accept that part of Acts 26. Do you also accept it when Acts 26 says Paul, even though blinded, actually spoke with the resurrected Jesus? It claims that as well.

          3. No where in Acts 26 does Paul state that he “saw” the resurrected body of Jesus:

            “On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

            And here is the same event as described in Acts 9:

            “As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. [a]It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” 6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” 7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.”

            It is very clear in Acts 9 that Paul does not see a body because Paul addresses “the voice”. The bright light has blinded Paul. And there is more: The men with Paul, who were not blinded, do not see Jesus’ body either! They too only hear a voice! There is zero evidence in either Acts 26 or Acts 9 that Paul saw Jesus’ resurrected body.

            So, are you insisting that somehow Paul did Jesus’ body in this alleged appearance on the Road to Damascus or are you claiming that Paul saw Jesus’ body at another time?

          4. In 1 Corithians 9:1, Paul explicitly claims to have SEEN the Lord Jesus. He explicitly claimed to have seen Jesus a good 20 years BEFORE Acts was written. It is an EARLIER claim than Acts.

            And, if you bothered to actually comprehend my previous comments, I’m acknowledging that Paul was blinded. My question to you, and you seem to have affirmed it–is, “Do you accept Acts 26 when it tells us that Paul SPOKE with Jesus on the Damascus Road?” So, you appear to affirm he did–thank you. Paul spoke to Jesus, the living Jesus, AFTER his crucifixion.

            All I’m saying is that in Acts, we are told Paul was blinded. And in 1 Corinthians 9, he says he SAW the Lord. I have to conclude that Acts does not give us a comprehensive detailed account of Paul’s entire life, and that other things happened in his life that Acts doesn’t mention.

          5. In your comment, it sounds as if you believe Paul saw Jesus’ resurrected body on another occasion. What evidence do you have for this belief?

            But even if it is true that Paul claimed to have seen the body of the resurrected Jesus on another occasion, the fact remains that if we accept as historically accurate the stories in the Book of Acts regarding Paul’s conversion, Paul did not see a resurrected body on the Damascus Road.

            Paul converted to Christianity based solely on seeing a bright light! Isn’t this proof that first century people could believe a body had been resurrected without actually seeing the (resurrected) body? Isn’t it also proof that the sighting of a bright light was enough to trigger belief one had experienced an appearance of a dead person?

            (FYI: I never stated that I believe that we should trust the historical reliability of the Book of Acts. That was your position. I am simply following the logical consequences if your assumption that Acts is historically reliable is correct.)

          6. Unlike you, I do not strain to find anything I can possibly inject my hyper-skepticism into. I believe Acts when it says Paul saw a bright light and was blinded and still TALKED WITH the resurrected Jesus. I also believe Paul when he says in I Corinthians 9 that he SAW the Lord. When did he see Jesus? On the Damascus Road? At some other point? I don’t know. But Acts is clear that Paul encountered and spoke with the resurrected Jesus, and Paul says (in I Corinthians 9) that he saw the resurrected Jesus. I accept that. You don’t–you cling to the “bright light” in Acts, completely discount what Paul himself said in I Corinthians 9, and then go off on your insane conspiracy theory that EVERYONE in the early Church believed Jesus was resurrected but NOBODY ever witnessed Jesus was resurrected.

            I just can’t take you seriously.

          7. So if you see a bright light AND hear voices it must be true? Get a grip, Joel. That is a delusion, not reality.

            The fact of the matter is: Paul did not need to see a resurrected body to believe in the Resurrection. He only had to see a bright light and hear voices. This evidence blows out of the water the apologetic claim that first century Jews would not have believed in the Resurrection unless they had seen a resurrected body. Nope. A bright light and hearing voices was sufficient.

            Stop being so gullible, Christians.

          8. Stop being purposely deceitful…to others and to yourself. Acts does not say Paul “heard voices.” It says he SPOKE WITH Jesus.

          9. When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the [burning] bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” 5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

            This is evidence that Jews believed that God could appear to them in the form of a bright light! In conclusion: The alleged appearances of Jesus to his disciples two thousand years ago is no more impressive than claims by modern Christians that they have seen the Virgin Mary. The detailed Resurrection Appearance Stories in the Gospels are embellished accounts of these original illusion experiences. And we have the evidence from the Bible itself! Just read Acts chapter 26.

            Good bye.

            Gary
            Author, Escaping Christian Fundamentalism blog

          10. No. Paul spoke and conversed with a bright light which be believed was Jesus.

            I just posted a new article which clearly demonstrates that Paul never saw Jesus’ resurrected body. When Paul says in First Corinthians 9 “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord” he was referring to seeing Jesus as a bright light on a dark desert highway. I’d love for you to address the facts I have presented in the post (free of personal attacks). If Paul saw a literal resurrected body that would be the best evidence one could give to a fellow Jew, like King Agrippa, as proof of Jesus’ resurrection. But Paul did not do that. Paul told the Jewish king about his experience with a talking, bright light. This is evidence that every post-death Jesus sighting likely involved the same phenomenon: bright lights or other illusions.

          11. I’m not going to address your nonsense anymore. When the actual text–the man himself–says, “I have seen THE LORD,” and you say, “No, no, no…it was just a bright light,” you are simply in a hopeless state of self-delusion. No amount of reasoning is going to help you.

            If you were honest, your whole shtick can be boiled down to this: “Everywhere in the NT, the consistent claim is that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. Nu-uh!” That’s all you’ve got–an opinion that flies in the face of ALL the textual evidence we have. Please, just stop.

  8. If you accept as historically reliable the author of Luke’s account of Paul’s testimony before Agrippa in Acts 26, all Paul claims to have seen was a bright light. It was so bright it blinded him! How could he possibly have seen Jesus if he was blind??? Please answer that simple question, Joel. The fact is, if this account is historically reliable, as you insist, all Paul saw was a bright light. Yet Paul believed the resurrected Jesus had appeared to him in this appearance. He even responded to the bright light as if it was Jesus! He included his bright light sighting experience in a list of other alleged post-death Jesus sightings. This is evidence that first century people could see a bright light and believe that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to them. They did not need a body, only a bright light.

    All alleged post-death Jesus sightings listed in the Early Creed of First Corinthians 15 could therefore have been based on bright light sightings. The appearance stories in the Gospels are later embellishements…so that you might believe! If first century people were gullible enough to believe that a bright light guided three wise guys across the desert to find a future king, it isn’t a stretch to imagine that these same gullible people believed that the sudden sighting of a bright light was an appearance of their dear departed cult/sect leader.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.