Several New Testament books were excluded from this analysis because they were not relevant to the topic, their authenticity has been contested by a consensus of Biblical scholars, or have been demonstrated to be duplicative in that they are later versions of the same content borrowed directly from an earlier source which has already been included here.
Despite their commonalities, there are significant incongruities between the two letter (Luke-Acts) written for Theophilus and the authentic Pauline letters. Paul’s character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Paul’s own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church. Meanwhile, Paul warned his followers to beware of false doctrines being spread by men masquerading as apostles of Christ.
Is the existence of these facts best explained by the claim that the anonymous author of the letters to Theophilus traveled with Paul for decades on his missionary journeys? No. If the anonymous author of the letters to Theophilus spent decades working closely with Paul who was extremely annoyed by the propagation of false doctrines, we would expect his description of Paul’s character, theology, and travels to be reasonably harmonious with Paul’s own autobiographical content. Does this fact disprove the claim that the anonymous author of the two letters to Theophilus was Paul’s companion? No, but it provides a good reason to remain skeptical of the claim and to question the reliability of the information contained within these two letters to Theopilus.
The authentic Pauline letters are the earliest sources for the resurrection claim and predate all subsequent New Testament accounts by several decades. Paul does not describe what happened to the body of Jesus after he was killed except to indicate it was buried. Rabbinic law specifies that criminals were to be buried in a common grave, not a tomb. If the body of a criminal was initially placed in a tomb to comply with the Jewish preparations for Passover, it would have only been a temporary arrangement until the body could be reburied in a common grave as required by Rabbinic Law.
Paul uses the Greek word, ὤφθη, to describe Jesus as “appearing” to him and the other apostles. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, when "ὤφθη" is used in this type of context, it refers to a divine revelation where someone experiences a spiritual presence of Jesus without actually observing his natural body made of flesh and bone. The 1st century Jewish concept of a spiritual body was that it was a physical body but more refined than the bulky flesh and bone natural body.
This collection of facts demonstrates that the earliest account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus as describe by Paul does not indicate anything about a missing body, an empty tomb, or post-resurrection appearances by Jesus in the form of a body made of flesh and bone. The existence of these facts requires an explanation. Does the claim that Paul believed the flesh and blood body of Jesus went missing from a tomb as a consequence of being resurrected best explain these facts? No. If it is assumed that Paul believed the body of Jesus was buried, his statement that Jesus was buried is neutral with respect to whether it was buried in a common grave or a tomb. If the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb to comply with the preparatory requirements for Passover, the given facts suggest it is reasonable to assume the body would have been quickly reburied in a common grave immediately following the observance of Passover. In any case, since Paul makes no mention of Jesus dying on or around Passover or anyone subsequently discovering an empty tomb, it would be presumptuous to infer that he believed the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb rather than buried in a common grave. This doesn't disprove the claim that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb but gives good reason to remain skeptical of it.
Furthermore, these facts demonstrate that Paul’s concept of a bodily resurrection only involved the raising-up of the refined spiritual body to heaven, not the bulky natural body made of flesh and bones. Therefore, given these facts, Paul most likely believed it was the resurrected spiritual body of Jesus that appeared to him and the other apostles rather than the natural body of Jesus which had been buried. This best explains the existence of the false apostles mentioned by Paul who were able to successfully convince many early Christians to believe their false doctrines. It is unlikely these false apostles were being deliberately deceptive and probably had what they perceived to be their own revelatory experiences with the resurrected spiritual body of Christ who guided them towards doctrines which conflicted with those endorsed by Paul.
These facts also best explain why there is no mention of Paul or anyone else going to the site where Jesus was buried (if the location was even known) to verify the remains of the body were missing or still there. Obviously, Paul and the other apostles would have no motivation to dig up the natural flesh and bone remains of Jesus if they believed it was his refined spiritual body that was resurrected. Does this disprove the claim that the natural flesh and bone body of Jesus went missing from a tomb? No. However, it does provide a good reason to be skeptical of the claim's validity.
Dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, physical exhaustion, led poisoning, malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and other medical conditions are known to trigger auditory and visual hallucinations in otherwise psychologically healthy people. There are altered psychological states which can be brought about through intense and lengthy meditation or prayer sessions where practitioners, who are otherwise psychologically healthy people, regularly experience auditory and visual hallucinations. Descriptions of these personal experiences often becomes more and more embellished the more they are recounted from memory.
When appropriately primed and motivated by a prescribed religious expectation, subliminal message, or an emotional crisis brought about through a shared traumatic event, it is common for a group of like-minded and psychologically healthy people to experience a kind of hypnotic and highly suggestive trance state while engaged in lengthy and intense meditation or prayer sessions. There also exists a form of psychological manipulation where group pressure to achieve a desired personal experience commonly influences participants to exaggerate or fabricate their individual experiences in order to conform with the group's expectations.
These facts provide reasonable and natural explanations for how Paul, the other apostles, the "five hundred", and the false apostles could have individually and collectively come to believe that they had experienced the presence of Christ's resurrected spiritual body. Since Paul describes the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to him in nebulous revelatory terms, it is reasonable to presume that the other appearances by Jesus would not necessarily have to be identical experiences. Therefore, a group of grieving people engaged in an intense and lengthy prayer session could come to believe they all experienced the spiritual presence of the resurrected Jesus at the same time without the need for each revelatory experience to be identical. Do these facts disprove the claim these people actually experienced the presence of Christ's resurrected spiritual body? No. However, they do give good reasons to be skeptical of the claim.
The book of Mark, being the earliest of the gospel accounts, does not identify the author and was a primary source of information for the books of Matthew and Luke. The earliest and best manuscripts of Mark conclude the resurrection account immediately after the women ran away scared from the empty tomb and never said anything to anyone. It is a historical fact that women were forbidden to serve as legal witnesses during the 1st century except in extenuating circumstances.
On the face of it, the argument suggesting that a fictional account of the resurrection would not likely credit women as having been the first to discover the empty tomb seems reasonable. However, we must remember that the earliest and best manuscripts of Mark ended immediately after the women ran away scared from the empty tomb and never said anything to anyone. Since the anonymous author of Mark was writing his version of the account decades after the resurrection of Jesus is supposed to have occurred, the abrupt ending of his story featuring the frightened women could be justifiably interpreted as an attempt to fabricate a plausible excuse for why no one had previously heard anything about an empty tomb. When challenged about this, Mark could have claimed the truth about the empty tomb was previously unknown because the women never told anyone about it until the detail was divinely revealed to him by Jesus. Furthermore, even if someone were to insist that the women would have eventually informed someone of their experience at the tomb if it were true, the author of Mark could have simply claimed the story was most likely dismissed being the source was a group of women rather than the legal testimony of a man or group of men.
Once again, none of this speculation about the facts demonstrates the resurrection claim is false but does provide a reasonable justification for remaining skeptical. If anyone can demonstrate where any of this information is false, I welcome and invite your constructive criticism.
Despite their commonalities, there are significant incongruities between the two letter (Luke-Acts) written for Theophilus and the authentic Pauline letters. Paul’s character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Paul’s own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church. Meanwhile, Paul warned his followers to beware of false doctrines being spread by men masquerading as apostles of Christ.
Is the existence of these facts best explained by the claim that the anonymous author of the letters to Theophilus traveled with Paul for decades on his missionary journeys? No. If the anonymous author of the letters to Theophilus spent decades working closely with Paul who was extremely annoyed by the propagation of false doctrines, we would expect his description of Paul’s character, theology, and travels to be reasonably harmonious with Paul’s own autobiographical content. Does this fact disprove the claim that the anonymous author of the two letters to Theophilus was Paul’s companion? No, but it provides a good reason to remain skeptical of the claim and to question the reliability of the information contained within these two letters to Theopilus.
The authentic Pauline letters are the earliest sources for the resurrection claim and predate all subsequent New Testament accounts by several decades. Paul does not describe what happened to the body of Jesus after he was killed except to indicate it was buried. Rabbinic law specifies that criminals were to be buried in a common grave, not a tomb. If the body of a criminal was initially placed in a tomb to comply with the Jewish preparations for Passover, it would have only been a temporary arrangement until the body could be reburied in a common grave as required by Rabbinic Law.
Paul uses the Greek word, ὤφθη, to describe Jesus as “appearing” to him and the other apostles. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, when "ὤφθη" is used in this type of context, it refers to a divine revelation where someone experiences a spiritual presence of Jesus without actually observing his natural body made of flesh and bone. The 1st century Jewish concept of a spiritual body was that it was a physical body but more refined than the bulky flesh and bone natural body.
This collection of facts demonstrates that the earliest account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus as describe by Paul does not indicate anything about a missing body, an empty tomb, or post-resurrection appearances by Jesus in the form of a body made of flesh and bone. The existence of these facts requires an explanation. Does the claim that Paul believed the flesh and blood body of Jesus went missing from a tomb as a consequence of being resurrected best explain these facts? No. If it is assumed that Paul believed the body of Jesus was buried, his statement that Jesus was buried is neutral with respect to whether it was buried in a common grave or a tomb. If the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb to comply with the preparatory requirements for Passover, the given facts suggest it is reasonable to assume the body would have been quickly reburied in a common grave immediately following the observance of Passover. In any case, since Paul makes no mention of Jesus dying on or around Passover or anyone subsequently discovering an empty tomb, it would be presumptuous to infer that he believed the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb rather than buried in a common grave. This doesn't disprove the claim that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb but gives good reason to remain skeptical of it.
Furthermore, these facts demonstrate that Paul’s concept of a bodily resurrection only involved the raising-up of the refined spiritual body to heaven, not the bulky natural body made of flesh and bones. Therefore, given these facts, Paul most likely believed it was the resurrected spiritual body of Jesus that appeared to him and the other apostles rather than the natural body of Jesus which had been buried. This best explains the existence of the false apostles mentioned by Paul who were able to successfully convince many early Christians to believe their false doctrines. It is unlikely these false apostles were being deliberately deceptive and probably had what they perceived to be their own revelatory experiences with the resurrected spiritual body of Christ who guided them towards doctrines which conflicted with those endorsed by Paul.
These facts also best explain why there is no mention of Paul or anyone else going to the site where Jesus was buried (if the location was even known) to verify the remains of the body were missing or still there. Obviously, Paul and the other apostles would have no motivation to dig up the natural flesh and bone remains of Jesus if they believed it was his refined spiritual body that was resurrected. Does this disprove the claim that the natural flesh and bone body of Jesus went missing from a tomb? No. However, it does provide a good reason to be skeptical of the claim's validity.
Dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, physical exhaustion, led poisoning, malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and other medical conditions are known to trigger auditory and visual hallucinations in otherwise psychologically healthy people. There are altered psychological states which can be brought about through intense and lengthy meditation or prayer sessions where practitioners, who are otherwise psychologically healthy people, regularly experience auditory and visual hallucinations. Descriptions of these personal experiences often becomes more and more embellished the more they are recounted from memory.
When appropriately primed and motivated by a prescribed religious expectation, subliminal message, or an emotional crisis brought about through a shared traumatic event, it is common for a group of like-minded and psychologically healthy people to experience a kind of hypnotic and highly suggestive trance state while engaged in lengthy and intense meditation or prayer sessions. There also exists a form of psychological manipulation where group pressure to achieve a desired personal experience commonly influences participants to exaggerate or fabricate their individual experiences in order to conform with the group's expectations.
These facts provide reasonable and natural explanations for how Paul, the other apostles, the "five hundred", and the false apostles could have individually and collectively come to believe that they had experienced the presence of Christ's resurrected spiritual body. Since Paul describes the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to him in nebulous revelatory terms, it is reasonable to presume that the other appearances by Jesus would not necessarily have to be identical experiences. Therefore, a group of grieving people engaged in an intense and lengthy prayer session could come to believe they all experienced the spiritual presence of the resurrected Jesus at the same time without the need for each revelatory experience to be identical. Do these facts disprove the claim these people actually experienced the presence of Christ's resurrected spiritual body? No. However, they do give good reasons to be skeptical of the claim.
The book of Mark, being the earliest of the gospel accounts, does not identify the author and was a primary source of information for the books of Matthew and Luke. The earliest and best manuscripts of Mark conclude the resurrection account immediately after the women ran away scared from the empty tomb and never said anything to anyone. It is a historical fact that women were forbidden to serve as legal witnesses during the 1st century except in extenuating circumstances.
On the face of it, the argument suggesting that a fictional account of the resurrection would not likely credit women as having been the first to discover the empty tomb seems reasonable. However, we must remember that the earliest and best manuscripts of Mark ended immediately after the women ran away scared from the empty tomb and never said anything to anyone. Since the anonymous author of Mark was writing his version of the account decades after the resurrection of Jesus is supposed to have occurred, the abrupt ending of his story featuring the frightened women could be justifiably interpreted as an attempt to fabricate a plausible excuse for why no one had previously heard anything about an empty tomb. When challenged about this, Mark could have claimed the truth about the empty tomb was previously unknown because the women never told anyone about it until the detail was divinely revealed to him by Jesus. Furthermore, even if someone were to insist that the women would have eventually informed someone of their experience at the tomb if it were true, the author of Mark could have simply claimed the story was most likely dismissed being the source was a group of women rather than the legal testimony of a man or group of men.
Once again, none of this speculation about the facts demonstrates the resurrection claim is false but does provide a reasonable justification for remaining skeptical. If anyone can demonstrate where any of this information is false, I welcome and invite your constructive criticism.
