Some unanswered questions from the gospels

[rakovsky]

The Samaritan women also raised the following. . .
...
This comment may be interpreted by some as indicative of an anti-temple sentiment which existed prior to the destruction of the temple. However, there does not necessarily need to be a positive correlation between anti-temple beliefs and messianic expectations before the temple's destruction.

In Ezekiel, a seemingly Messianic priest-king is worshiping in the Third temple. This replacement of Temples could suggest some kind of problem or destroyed status for the Second Temple viz a viz Messiah, like a possibility that the Second Temple was taken down. I heard that in Tanakh when the Second Temple was built, the elders were crying. Maybe there was a problem with the construction, like it wasn't done the right way (that's one claim I heard).

Also in Daniel 9, the anointing of the holy places in the beginning of the angel's prophecy about a Messiah prince seems to have a strange status, since the prophecy ends with the Temple's desolation ("yashit").

Sadduccees running the Temple rejected the non-Torah part of the Tanakh, and the Resurrection. Maybe they rejected the concept of Messiah too, but I am not sure. Messiah is basically a post-Torah concept, although interestingly traditional Jews and Christians have said Messiah is in Torah too.

[rakovsky]

The well-known Creed-like resurrection narrative from 1 Corinthians 15 says:

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

And this raises the question of what the original narrative was of the resurrection appearances. If we don't strictly follow the canonical narrative, then can we rearrange some stories to fit into the outline Paul gives above? Even if one were to imagine that this is an interpolation, then what did the interpolator have in mind?

How or Where was Jesus seen uniquely by Peter?
The only three options I can think of are:
(1) At the tomb or returning from it (But the gospels never specify this)
(2) On the road to Emmaus (But Luke, who narrates this, implies that Peter was not one of the two Emmaus travelers)
(3) At the sea in Galilee. This is the only narration of Peter specially meeting Jesus that I know of. (But this excludes the narrative in Luke and John 20 where the 12 see Jesus in Jerusalem on Day 1 or 2 of the Resurrection. It fits with Mark, Matthew, and maybe an earlier version of John 21)

[Ulan]

At home in his bed. Paul's "meetings" were obviously private visions. There's no reason to assume he would use different standards with Peter or anyone else.

[spin]

The well-known Creed-like resurrection narrative from 1 Corinthians 15 says:

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time an abortion.

And this raises the question of what the original narrative was of the resurrection appearances. If we don't strictly follow the canonical narrative, then can we rearrange some stories to fit into the outline Paul gives above? Even if one were to imagine that this is an interpolation, then what did the interpolator have in mind?

The full section appears to be an interpolation, given that it starts with language inappropriate for Paul's stated position (the Greek verb behind "received" here is one of from master to pupil or from God to Paul, not from human sources, see Gal 1:11-12) and finishes with self-belittlement (the abortion comment) which so grossly conflicts with God having chosen Paul when he was in the womb. The existence of the argument that Paul puts forward in 15:12-19 is rendered superfluous by 15:3-11, for, if Paul had knowledge of so many people having witnessed the resurrection, he would not have needed to argue as he does in 15:12-19. There would be no sense arguing "if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain", when 500+ people have witnessed the resurrected Christ. This interpolation was written so far after Paul's time that it incorporates the legendary sighting by 500, which the gospels—all written after Paul's efforts—knew nothing about!

The passage does a number of things: 1) it gives substance to what must have been viewed by later christians as a weak argument by Paul, 2) it puts a real resurrection story in Paul's epistles, and it puts Paul in his place, stressing Cephas and James before him and he being an abortion.

[andrewcriddle]

The well-known Creed-like resurrection narrative from 1 Corinthians 15 says:

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

And this raises the question of what the original narrative was of the resurrection appearances. If we don't strictly follow the canonical narrative, then can we rearrange some stories to fit into the outline Paul gives above? Even if one were to imagine that this is an interpolation, then what did the interpolator have in mind?

How or Where was Jesus seen uniquely by Peter?
The only three options I can think of are:
(1) At the tomb or returning from it (But the gospels never specify this)
(2) On the road to Emmaus (But Luke, who narrates this, implies that Peter was not one of the two Emmaus travelers)
(3) At the sea in Galilee. This is the only narration of Peter specially meeting Jesus that I know of. (But this excludes the narrative in Luke and John 20 where the 12 see Jesus in Jerusalem on Day 1 or 2 of the Resurrection. It fits with Mark, Matthew, and maybe an earlier version of John 21)

See Luke 24:33-34

They [The Emmaus travelers] got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

This apparently refers to a special appearance of Jesus to Simon [Peter].

Andrew Criddle

[rakovsky]

The well-known Creed-like resurrection narrative from 1 Corinthians 15 says:
How or Where was Jesus seen uniquely by Peter?
The only three options I can think of are:
(1) At the tomb or returning from it (But the gospels never specify this)
(2) On the road to Emmaus (But Luke, who narrates this, implies that Peter was not one of the two Emmaus travelers)
(3) At the sea in Galilee. This is the only narration of Peter specially meeting Jesus that I know of. (But this excludes the narrative in Luke and John 20 where the 12 see Jesus in Jerusalem on Day 1 or 2 of the Resurrection. It fits with Mark, Matthew, and maybe an earlier version of John 21)

See Luke 24:33-34

They [The Emmaus travelers] got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

This apparently refers to a special appearance of Jesus to Simon [Peter].

Andrew Criddle

Thank you. I am aware of this as I put in Blue. The reason I made the post above, trying to figure it out, was because Luke 24:33-34 does not narrate what the appearance was and its details, only that it occurred.