We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Aractus]

In the next paragraph of his blog post, Baxter opines:

Here’s another problem – several New Testament authors never mention the resurrection of Jesus. Paul never once mentions a physical, bodily, resurrection. He never mentions the empty tomb either.

Now, I had planned to write a response this this particular assertion...but quite honestly, the subject has been addressed quite capably by many others at various websites. Here in one example:

---

It has been supposed that Paul’s Damascus road experience was essentially different from the experience of the other apostles. His experience has been held to be mystical and subjective, while theirs was physical and objective. Furthermore, it is argued, Paul says nothing about the tomb being empty.

Paul, however, does not differentiate his experience from the rest of the apostles, other than in its timing. He was not with them at the beginning. He says “he appeared to Peter … he appeared to James … and last of all he appeared also to me”. Previously he had asked. “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1). He says nothing to imply that his experience was essentially different from theirs.

While he does not refer to the tomb being empty, it is implicit in the creed. Firstly, the creed describes the progression “died … buried … raised … appeared”. Whilst modern people might be tempted to separate these meanings, a first century Jew would only have believed that the sentence implied a continuity. What was dead was buried, what was dead and buried was raised, and what was dead, buried and raised also appeared. The clear implication of this creed is that Jesus underwent a bodily resurrection.

Secondly, the creed is emphatic that something happened “on the third day”. That event, we are told, is that Jesus “was raised”. The appearances, which followed, continued over several weeks.

Thirdly, we need to imagine how Paul and Peter spent their time when they spent 15 days together in Jerusalem. We have already noted that Paul went there “to investigate”. Did they not retrace Christ’s final journey? Did they not pause for prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane or stand where the cross had stood? Did Peter not show him the tomb where he and John had discovered the grave clothes? This, of course, is speculation. But Paul wanted to clarify the facts – and 15 days in a small city is a long time. There are therefore very good reasons to believe that Paul was fully aware that the tomb was empty.

Source:
The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul
by Peter May
http://www.bethinking.org/did-jesus-rise...ss-of-paul

About the Author
Peter May served on the General Synod of the Church of England from 1985 to 2010 and was Chair of the UCCF Trust Board from  2003 to 2010. He is a retired GP.

---

Ok Randy. So your response is that he makes a reference to it in a creed he quotes, which by your own admission is a creed? It's just like people quoting the Nicene Creed today - doesn't mean they actually witnessed the supposed transfiguration, does it?

From this, we see that 1) Paul did speak of the physical resurrection of Jesus in 1 Cor 15, and 2) Paul's meetings in Jerusalem with the apostles would have provided him with an opportunity to investigate (Gr. historeo) (cf. Gal. 1:18-19) the full details of the empty tomb. Additionally, I think it is more than reasonable to assume that prior to his conversion, Paul would have been fully aware of the believers' claim of resurrection as well as the counter-claim that the disciples stole the body put forward by the Jews in response. In fact, he would have advocated that stolen body theory himself during the 2-3 year period that he was persecuting the early Church.

The claim that the body had been stolen coupled with the fact that his own conversion was brought about by his meeting the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus (which convinced him that the body obviously had not been stolen), leave no doubt that Paul believed the tomb was empty.

Baxter is simply wrong.

Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb. All he says in the 1 Cor 15 creed he recites is that Jesus is raised.

As I pointed out to you earlier there are TWO different versions of Paul's conversion in the Bible. One written by Paul himself - where he doesn't say that he met the risen Jesus at all - and the other a hearsay account in Acts 9.

I didn't say the body was stolen from the tomb. I do not know what happened after Jesus was supposedly laid in it, but there are many possibilities - including the family taking it for reburial, Joseph moving it out of his tomb for reasons known only to him, or the disciples simply going to the wrong tomb since the family or family member they talked to put them in the wrong direction.

The first written accounts of the resurrection are in Luke and Matthew. Mark does not mention it. As you would be well aware I do advocate for the view that Matt/Luke were written c. 60AD which is towards the end of Paul's writings. You'd also be aware that I'm keen to pint out that the Epistle of James is written early - before 50AD in my opinion. That means the first accounts we know about (with reasonable confidence) come from James, Paul, and Mark.  Even with later dating of the gospels this is true. So Paul does not need to know about the resurrection theory since he doesn't make reference to it and it doesn't appear until after his epistles.

That makes you wrong, obviously.