Problems in John's Account of the Resurrection

rakovsky · Jul 5, 2015

(1) How many disciples did Jesus show himself to on Day 1 of the Resurrection: 10, 11, or 12?
In Luke 24:33-40, "the eleven" disciples saw Jesus on Day 1 of the Resurrection. It says eleven disciples, not twelve, because Judas had already separated himself from them by openly betraying Jesus or killed himself (Matt 27).

John 20 explains that Jesus showed himself to the disciples on Day 1 of the Resurrection, but that Thomas wasn't there on Day 1, so after eight days Jesus showed Himself to them together with Thomas. This means that Jesus only showed Himself to 10 disciples on Day 1, and then Judas on Day 2.

Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:5 that after Jesus' resurrection, He showed Himself to "the twelve".

The best way I can think to harmonize these is to think that when they talk about "the twelve" or "the eleven", they simply mean that the inner group of Jesus' apostles was there and they don't mean that exactly eleven or twelve apostles were so gathered.

Of course, this raises the question of how many apostles were actually gathered if it doesn't mean an exact number. Perhaps if even fewer apostles saw Jesus appear the gospel's original narrator would still state that "the eleven" saw Him. This is worth considering, since these were the two times when the largest number of apostles saw a clearly physical appearance by Jesus.

(2) Why didn't Mary recognize Jesus in John 20:14?
("And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.")

When the two apostles met Jesus on the road to Emmaus they didn't recognize Him. And when seven of them met Jesus by the sea of Galilee, they were afraid to even ask Him if He were Jesus. The fact that the apostles repeatedly didn't recognize Him have given rise to proposals that sometimes they were mistaking a stranger or imposter for Jesus.

Another possible explanation for the confusion is the Christian idea that Jesus is in or can be other people in a spiritual way. That is, they met other people who they reinterpreted as being Jesus. (eg. the Church as Jesus' body, Jesus' spirit filling people, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" Gal. 2:20, "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me." Mat 25:40)

(3) Why does it say that the disciples dared not ask Jesus if He were Jesus in John 21:12:

Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

This was already the third time Jesus had appeared and Peter treated the stranger as if He were Jesus, so why would they be afraid to ask Him His identity?

posthuman · Jul 5, 2015

rakovsky said:

maybe they were afraid they would be rebuked for asking, as though doubting who He is, or disbelieving that what they heard and saw is true.

Jesus answered:
"Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?"
(John 14:9)

flob · Jul 5, 2015

'Seeing the 12 After...' doesn't specify which day or all-at-once, does it?

Recognizing Him may have to do with His glorified body......I know not how because I've not seen His glorified body
or anyone's. Also the fear may have been because, at that particular point, they weren't waiting in Jerusalem like He had
directed. But rather were back making a living fishing, 'retreating,' with one another.

Too it's a radical surprise.......to see someone you saw die. The faith factor runs deep

Willie-T · Jul 5, 2015

flob said:

'Seeing the 12 After...' doesn't specify which day or all-at-once, does it?

Recognizing Him may have to do with His glorified body......I know not how because I've not seen His glorified body
or anyone's. Also the fear may have been because, at that particular point, they weren't waiting in Jerusalem like He had
directed. But rather were back making a living fishing, 'retreating,' with one another.

Too it's a radical surprise.......to see someone you saw die. The faith factor runs deep

Pretty deep understanding from one so young. (That's a compliment.)

blood_bought · Jul 5, 2015

Peace unto you.

1) apparently, 'the Twelve' is simply a common designation here.

2) consider the peace, joy, hope, and love we experience through Holy Spirit as believers, having not seen Him in the flesh.
now consider the anguish of having once beheld the Lord of Glory, walked and talked with Him, seeking solace in perhaps seeing Him again even after life has left Him.... only to discover an empty tomb.

in her coming to terms with this sad reality amidst weeping...she turns to see "just another man" asking her why...perhaps the gardener?...(John 20:15)... i'm sure you get the idea.

3) they wanted to believe it was Him, but imagine the shock amidst joy... "is it REALLY you???"

Luke 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

as usual, we can find ourselves easily doubting the Lord's promises when facing devastating circumstances. the apostles and those with them were no exception. when all seems lost and it appears even God has abandoned us, what is man left to but vain reasoning and human wisdom?

i'm sure that many among them refused to accept Christ's meeting of death, but only in their ignorance of His power over it.

an important lesson is portrayed here in that, we must truly die with Him... it is then that one is empowered with the grace to truly follow.

breno785au · Jul 5, 2015

Regarding the two walking with Jesus on the road, it says
Luk 24:16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

Then as they were walking together:
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

But then something happens here:
Luk 24:30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them.
Luk 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.

I'm not sure what the significance of the blessing that caused their eyes to be opened, or if it was a combination of the scriptures being interpreted to them and the blessing?

We can also take into consideration what the two said to Jesus about what they had expected Jesus to have done, they seemed to be sorely discouraged and disillusioned. I know personally myself these two things when they are weighing on the mind you actually don't see clearly..at least spiritually.

Just some scriptures that I think are keys as to why they didn't recognise Him?

Some points to ponder perhaps?

posthuman · Jul 5, 2015

this about having eyes opened is important -- it is not us who open our own eyes to see, but the One who made the eye also gives it light.

we see the same thing in Elisha praying for eyes to be opened so that the armies of the Lord could be seen, and Balaam's eyes being opened so he could see the angel blocking his path - though the donkey could see it clearly - and even Paul describing to Agrippa what Christ had called him to do (Acts 26:18) -- and not to mention that Saul was blinded when he saw the Lord, so that his own eyes had to be opened! & in another way, he was blind before, until that event on the road, when his inward eyes were opened, and his fleshly eyes were blinded.

it is gory to God! i thank Him that He has allowed me to see at all, even if only dimly

i know it is not of myself, but a gift from heaven, to understand anything.

crossnote · Jul 5, 2015

Willie-T said:

You believe everything you read on the internet? lol

breno785au · Jul 5, 2015

posthuman said:

this about having eyes opened is important -- it is not us who open our own eyes to see, but the One who made the eye also gives it light.

we see the same thing in Elisha praying for eyes to be opened so that the armies of the Lord could be seen, and Balaam's eyes being opened so he could see the angel blocking his path - though the donkey could see it clearly - and even Paul describing to Agrippa what Christ had called him to do (Acts 26:18) -- and not to mention that Saul was blinded when he saw the Lord, so that his own eyes had to be opened! & in another way, he was blind before, until that event on the road, when his inward eyes were opened, and his fleshly eyes were blinded.

it is gory to God! i thank Him that He has allowed me to see at all, even if only dimly

i know it is not of myself, but a gift from heaven, to understand anything.

Woah! Amen brother

Proverbs 20:!2
Ears to hear and eyes to see--both are gifts from the LORD.

MarcR · Jul 6, 2015

rakovsky said:

If you read through to verse 51, you will see that the events of Luke24:33-40 took place not on Day 1; but on the day of Jesus ascension into heaven.

John 20 does, indeed, relate the events of Day1; and thus has NO RELATION IN TIME to the events in Luke 24:33-40.

We are not told why; but certainly, If Jesus wanted to temporarily delay her recognition, He had the power to do so.

Perhaps her belief that Jesus was dead was sufficient to impede recognition. Does it really matter?

(3) Why does it say that the disciples dared not ask Jesus if He were Jesus in John 21:12:

Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

This was already the third time Jesus had appeared and Peter treated the stranger as if He were Jesus, so why would they be afraid to ask Him His identity?

Very simply, people do not like to appear foolish; and it is quite reasonable that Jesus' disciples would not want to appear unbelieving.

flob · Jul 6, 2015

eyes open makes sense. It's a matter of turning to the spirit, where sight is, where light is.
The mind of the spirit is life and peace, Rm 8.
This reminds me of Gen 3 where Even and Adam sinned and it says their eyes were opened.
Of course, that was the eyes of another presence, another life in them, through their negative
eating. The nature of the devil.
The Lord 'keeps our eyes' when we're in the mind,
and opens them to reality when we're in the spirit,
1 Pet 1:3

atwhatcost · Jul 6, 2015

rakovsky said:

There was this problem that the apostles thought needed to be fixed in a hurry. You're right. Originally there were 12, but one betrayed him. So while the guys were waiting around for Pentecost, they spent a little time thinking there should be 12 again. Even they said there were two guys hanging around the entire time Jesus' ministry was going on, so they picked out Barnabas and Matthias. They prayed about it, drew lots, and Matthias got the gig.

So, all the first-hand accounts probably saw the ten, Barnabas and Matthias, and a bunch of others hiding out in that room, knew that Matthias got the job, so by the time they were talking to Luke, they had accepted Matthias as an apostle.

Now in my old church there were six Big Wigs at the top of the nondenoms "important guys" list. (They're the ones who made the big decisions and came to give important messages to the not-very-organized groups of churches. But when I joined, they were all called "The Big Five." Um, I kept counting all their names and I needed an extra thumb. So, no, six, not five. I had to ask. Apparently two of them were hit or miss. One was off traveling the world into something else for a while, while the other guy was working with the other four. Or it would switch around, so every called them "The Big Five" because even though they were six, the decisions were always made by five. Given what Barnabas did in his lifetime -- talking to Peter, talking to Paul, back to Peter, usually with Paul, etc., he was really an important guy. I suspect a lot of people considered him an honorary apostles, so listened to him as an apostle.

That makes the numbers work whether it was 10, 11, or 12.

posthuman · Jul 6, 2015

i agree with the explanations about "the twelve" probably being more of a nomenclature to refer to the apostles as a group than an actual head count, and Paul also in 1 Cor 15:5 isn't referencing the specific event in the upper room as much as the fact that Christ appeared to them - from the next few verses, where he mentions other appearances, it seems to me that he's referring to the apostles as a specific group, and using the term like you might say "the quartet" even if one of them wasn't present.

as far as how many were actually gathered there, there were more disciples than just the apostles - Barnabas and Matthias, for example. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 says He appeared to more than 500 all at the same time. in Acts 1:3 Luke writes that He appeared over a period of 40 days with "many convincing proofs" -- the accounts in the gospels are obviously not a complete record, nor are they meant to be, as John points out at the end of his gospel. how many apostles, i would say 10, because Thomas wasn't there on that specific occasion - as John informs us, and i'd guess John would also inform us if another member of "the twelve" wasn't present (except Judas, who is an obvious omission), but then again it might be that someone else wasn't there that day too, but didn't have doubt like Thomas did. but in addition to the 10 or less, how many 'disciples' that weren't one of "the twelve"?
who knows? maybe as many as 500. or maybe that was another occasion.

some cast doubt on Paul's statement of '500' brethren seeing Christ, because of Acts 1:15, where the disciples are choosing a replacement for Judas, and "about 120" are gathered. the assumption is that the total number of Christ's followers in Jerusalem at the time is 120 - so how could there possibly be 500? but Acts 1:15 is telling us specifically about the people gathered to deal with the question of Judas no longer being among them -- and isn't necessarily giving a census of all the disciples. besides this, 120 is a very specific number. it is specifically, the minimum number of people in a Jewish community such that it is necessary to have a Sanhedrin present. it's a Jewish legal 'quorum' more or less - fewer than 120, and they don't count as a community able to make their own decisions apart from another community. 120 or more, and they can function as an independent community, and must have their own legal body. 120 is the 'unit size' of Jewish self-governance. so when Luke tells us that there are "about 120" present, he's saying that there are "enough" to make this important decision.
this is what i've been taught, and the significance of the number comes from the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah, which was a council of 120 established ~ 500 BC, and became a pattern of rabbinic assembly. the modern Israeli Knesset (or "assembly") has 120 members, patterned after this. if this is way wrong, of course i'd like to know (!!), or if anyone else knows more about it, i'd love to hear that too

rakovsky · Jul 14, 2015

posthuman said:

Hello, Posthuman.
The significance of the question is that they weren't sure if the person was Jesus, otherwise they wouldn't think to ask.
And not only did they think to ask, but they would have, except for some reason they were scared to, ie. they didn't "dare" to.
What that means is that they didn't directly ascertain if the person was Jesus, or else John's gospel wouldn't bother mentioning this detail. And if they weren't sure if the person was Jesus and didn't directly ascertain it, then it also becomes comparably questionable for future readers whether it was really Jesus.

Certainly they had other ways to ascertain if it was really Jesus, like asking things about himself that only would be true for Jesus. But instead, they just leave it on the note that they didn't dare to ask him his identity.

And why should they have any doubt about it, which had prompted their consideration of asking him? They had already seen him appear twice and convince them twice before of his reality. And the first time convinced them so much that before the second time they were already trying to convince Thomas in John 20.

It's rational to propose that they would be scared to ask because they could be rebuked. But they were not disbelieving the resurrection, only doubting this stranger's identity. And Jesus had already been understanding about Thomas' doubt. Jesus, being fully human, should have understood the importance of discerning clearly whether an apparition or other person in the post-resurrection era were Jesus or not.

In the passage you quoted, Jesus replied to Philip, not for questioning if an apparition was Jesus, but for requesting to see God the Father.

rakovsky · Jul 14, 2015

flob said:

Hello, Flob.
That practically doesn't matter, because whatever the day or whether it was all-at once, Judas was still gone from the twelve after his betrayal, and that is why Luke correctly calls them "the eleven", not the twelve. But in Paul's letter, Paul speaks of Jesus appearing to "the twelve" after He did to Peter.

I guess though that Jesus could have appeared to Judas separately after Jesus' resurrection, but the gospel makes it sound like Judas killed himself even before Jesus arose. And besides, Jesus appearing to Judas who had rejected him sounds strange, and anyway it's not mentioned in the gospels or church tradition.

When Mary Magdalene saw him without recognizing him, she did not think he was a glorified being, but the gardener.

But it says that they were afraid to ask his identity, not to meet him outside of Jerusalem.
Second, they were already used to seeing him twice before in Jerusalem, and had gone out of their way to convince Thomas that the resurrection was real, so it would not have been such a radical surprise the third time as before, and because of the two times before they were already believers.

rakovsky · Jul 14, 2015

blood_bought said:

This is my best guess. But it also suggests that just because the gospels or Paul say the twelve or the eleven saw him, it doesn't mean that they all saw him. In fact, maybe even less than ten saw him, because it's just talking in a generality. Maybe just 6 people saw him, but due to this way of collective talking, it portrays it as if 10 did.

John doesn't specify how many people saw Jesus besides Thomas on the first or second appearances, and we already know that Luke and Paul got the number wrong.

OK, she had already spent much time knowing what he looked like, and I understand that she was sad, but when she did see him, why else wouldn't she recognize him?

If you thought a relative had died and then their body had gone missing, but unbeknownst to you the relative survived and came to you, you would definitely not confuse the relative for a gardener, because you know so distinctly how your relative looked. In fact, you would conclude that it was probably a ghost, but definitely not a gardener.

So why be scared to ask?

Ok. After that they were all convinced that Jesus had been risen, since they tried to convince Thomas they had seen him. But then in John 20 they for some reason feel a need to ask him if he's Jesus, but then for some other reason are scared.

Right. So after that time they did believe. But John 21 by the sea was the third time they met him, it says. And they weren't doubting in John 21 if Jesus resurrected, but if the stranger was Jesus.

OK, but like I said, according to John, they were already believing so much that they tried to convince Thomas, at which point they were believing even more because Jesus allegedly showed up.

rakovsky · Jul 14, 2015

breno785au said:

If the person was not Jesus, they would not recognise him as Jesus.
What would be the point of keeping their eyes from actually recognizing him?

Maybe that means that when they actually looked at him, he looked like a different person?

When it says that their eyes were opened, would that mean that it was their spiritual eyes that were opened, and thus they saw the stranger as not physically Jesus, but spiritually as Jesus?

If so, that would sound a bit like the Mormon's "three Witnesses" to the Mormon miracle of the golden plates, who didn't physically see the plates, but only spiritually saw the golden plates, which means that the plates didn't actually exist and the Mormons could have just imagined them.

That's what I mean. It sounds like one explanation is that they saw physically fine, but they didn't spiritually see things. The stranger had the real physical appearance not of Jesus, and he didn't look that way spiritually either. But then when the stranger talked to them about the Messianic prophecies, then metaphorically and "spiritually" their "eyes were opened and in their mind and spirit they perceived someone who did not actually look like Jesus to be Jesus.

rakovsky · Jul 14, 2015

posthuman said:

OK, so in those cases could only the donkey see angel(s) physically? Or are angels such spiritual beings that only some animals can see them?
In that case, does this mean that people perceived angels only in "spiritual" visions or mentally, and not physically? If so, does this mean Jesus' appearance as the stranger was only "spiritual" or mental, not actual or physical?

Paul got blinded on the road and heard Jesus' voice, but it doesn't say that he actually saw Jesus on the road or another time before his physical sight was restored. Later on, after his physical sight returned, he had a vision of Jesus in the Temple, but it wasn't a physical appearance of Jesus, apparently.

rakovsky · Jul 14, 2015

MarcR said:

Yes, but they had already spent three years with Jesus, so they knew exactly what he looked like and wouldn't mistake him for someone else except for some practically impossible twin. And they already believed that he was appearing to them occasionally since he resurrected- it was His third appearance to them. And based on John 20, they were already strong believers, who tried to convince Thomas.
So what was the basis for their disbelief in this case, since they believed in the resurrection appearances? Maybe they were not sure if this particular person was Jesus because he didn't look like Jesus to them physically?
Christianity emphasizes the importance of discernment and testing the spirits. Paul warned against following another Jesus. So asking if the person was Jesus would have been a legitimate question, and apparently there was some specific basis for it in this case.

rakovsky · Jul 14, 2015

flob said:

OK, so this is what I am confused about, Flob.
Are these passages suggesting that when we look at things when we're in the mind, then we see the physical reality, but when we're in the spirit we see a spiritual reality?

So if we watch religious performers or some Sufi magicians we might carefully use our powers of reason to notice that they are actually just using "magic tricks", sleight of hand, and optical illusions and fooling people, thus resulting in "doubts"? But if we use our spiritual sense, then we perceive some kind of magical or spiritual forces at work, thus resulting in a "belief" about those forces?

The problem with this is that we might just relying on our inspirations and "inner" senses to perceive something that is not actually or physically real. That is, just because some believers have amazing morality doesn't mean that something like a vision that they perceive is actually real.

Problems in John's Account of the Resurrection

rakovsky

Guest

Senior Member

flob

Guest

Banned

Junior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

flob

Guest

atwhatcost

Guest

Senior Member

rakovsky

Guest

rakovsky

Guest

rakovsky

Guest

rakovsky

Guest

rakovsky

Guest

rakovsky

Guest

rakovsky

Guest