Jesus' appearance after resurrection

[einstein]

Could someone on this forum please tell me where Jesus made his first appearance to his apostles after his resurrection?

 

[Bick]

Could someone on this forum please tell me where Jesus made his first appearance to his apostles after his resurrection?

MY COMMENTS: While it is recorded that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and then some other women near the tomb early on the day of his resurrection, it was later that day that he appeared to two of his disciples on the road to Ammaeus, explaining all the OT scriptures the things concerning Himself.
After Jesus revealed himself to them, and then disappeared, they went back to Jerusalem to the room where the eleven and the other disciples were.

It was then, that day (the day of His resurrection), that Jesus appeared miraculously to the disciples.

Read Luke Chapt. 24.

 

[wavy]

There are two traditions in the gospels, divided between Mark/Matthew & Luke/John. The first two place his post-resurrection appearances in Galilee, the latter in Jerusalem. John in probably based on its own tradition, but it's interesting to see how Luke tendentiously altered the text of Mark to agree with the Jerusalem tradition.


Finis,
Eric

 

[sforces]

if you read matthew, mark, luke and john.
there are some pretty substantial differences in the resurrection
can any one explain this or did one of the scribes mess up? why hasnt anyone fixed it either?
i have heard "they are true and they are based on a different point of view" which doesnt make sense because obviously someone is wrong. if i drove my car down the street and stopped at a red light. the story shouldnt change

 

[MMarc]

John's version of the gospel I believe points Jesus in the day in the resurrection where Jesus returns with the saints.

The scriptures are not seperated by space but by time is all. John is way more prophetic and spiritual then the more historical approach of the others.

Like and eagle flying high, who sees all the land afar off, but to get to the land further down, it takes time before those who walk the earth can get to the place the eagle sees.

That is what I see in these differences. Remember Jesus returns.

 

[kenmaynard]

John's version of the gospel I believe points Jesus in the day in the resurrection where Jesus returns with the saints.

The scriptures are not seperated by space but by time is all. John is way more prophetic and spiritual then the more historical approach of the others.

Like and eagle flying high, who sees all the land afar off, but to get to the land further down, it takes time before those who walk the earth can get to the place the eagle sees.

That is what I see in these differences. Remember Jesus returns.

Are you saying the accounts aren't literal?

 

[Free]

if you read matthew, mark, luke and john.
there are some pretty substantial differences in the resurrection
can any one explain this or did one of the scribes mess up? why hasnt anyone fixed it either?
i have heard "they are true and they are based on a different point of view" which doesnt make sense because obviously someone is wrong. if i drove my car down the street and stopped at a red light. the story shouldnt change

This is the argument that Christians cannot win but that is because it is a problem with the argument. If the stories were identical then the charge of copying each other would be made and the accounts doubted as true. But if they are different then the charge of discrepancies is made and the accounts are therefore doubted as true. However, discrepancies, whether real or perceived, are not reasonable cause on which to dismiss the accounts as mere stories or myth. In fact, if there are many witnesses, then these are precisely the type of accounts we would expect.

Your analogy doesn't work for several reasons. Firstly, it is an ordinary event--there is nothing spectacular, shocking or unexpected about it. Secondly, since it is an ordinary event there will be no questioning, no need for witnesses. Thirdly, if you are telling the story and it keeps changing then the problem resides with you alone.

What we have with the gospels are four, mostly independent, accounts of the resurrection which possibly relied on many eyewitnesses. Differences in detail are precisely what we should expect. I am not convinced that there is any discrepancy as to when Jesus first appeared to the apostles.

Luke and John place Jesus in Jerusalem on the evening of his resurrection for his first post-resurrection appearances. Mark's gospel likely ends with verse 8, saying nothing of post-resurrection appearances but does mention that he would be in Galilee. Matthew places a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee and John also contains an appearance in Galilee. Since Galilee is, in my opinion based on maps, likely a few days journey north of Jerusalem, it is likely all accounts are correct, they just summed things up differently, including and excluding certain details based on what they wanted to say.

 

[sforces]

John's version of the gospel I believe points Jesus in the day in the resurrection where Jesus returns with the saints.

The scriptures are not seperated by space but by time is all. John is way more prophetic and spiritual then the more historical approach of the others.

Like and eagle flying high, who sees all the land afar off, but to get to the land further down, it takes time before those who walk the earth can get to the place the eagle sees.

That is what I see in these differences. Remember Jesus returns.

Are you saying the accounts aren't literal?

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE PROPHETIC OR NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESSURECTION SHOULD NOT CHANGE. IN THE FIRST ONE THERE IS AN EARTHQUAKE, THE STONE ROLLED BACK AND THE ANGEL IS SITTING ON THE STONE WHICH IS ROLLED BACK AWAY FROM THE TOMB. THEY NEVER ENTERED THE TOMB.


THE NEXT ONE SHOWS THEY ENTERED THE TOMB AND THE ANGEL WAS INSIDE, AND THEN THERE WERE TWO ANGELS AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT, ADDED OR MISSING PEOPLE WHO WENT TO THE TOMB. READ ALL 4 AND YOU WILL SEE PRETTY BIG DIFFERENCES. YES THE MAIN BASE OF THE RESSURECTION IS THERE.

 

[kenmaynard]

John's version of the gospel I believe points Jesus in the day in the resurrection where Jesus returns with the saints.

The scriptures are not seperated by space but by time is all. John is way more prophetic and spiritual then the more historical approach of the others.

Like and eagle flying high, who sees all the land afar off, but to get to the land further down, it takes time before those who walk the earth can get to the place the eagle sees.

That is what I see in these differences. Remember Jesus returns.

Are you saying the accounts aren't literal?

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE PROPHETIC OR NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESSURECTION SHOULD NOT CHANGE. IN THE FIRST ONE THERE IS AN EARTHQUAKE, THE STONE ROLLED BACK AND THE ANGEL IS SITTING ON THE STONE WHICH IS ROLLED BACK AWAY FROM THE TOMB. THEY NEVER ENTERED THE TOMB.


THE NEXT ONE SHOWS THEY ENTERED THE TOMB AND THE ANGEL WAS INSIDE, AND THEN THERE WERE TWO ANGELS AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT, ADDED OR MISSING PEOPLE WHO WENT TO THE TOMB. READ ALL 4 AND YOU WILL SEE PRETTY BIG DIFFERENCES. YES THE MAIN BASE OF THE RESSURECTION IS THERE.

Calm down. There is no need to yell. The answer to your questions is simple. The bible was written by different people in different times. The bible is not meant to be taken as a literal science or history book OK.

 

[Free]

sforces,

In case you weren't aware, all-caps is considered yelling. If you want to stress a point, strategically use italics, bold, underline and or font color.

In regards to your points, you seem to have skipped the points I made at the end of my previous post.


kenmaynard,

While I would agree that the Bible isn't a book of science, it does contain books of history and meant to be taken as such. In fact, the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus, based on what the Bible says, is by far the best explanation for the rise of Christianity. But that is for another topic altogether.

 

[samuel]

Here is my opinion. All of the Gospel accounts agree on the fundamental aspects. Burial, Resurrection, Jesus appearance to Mary, and the Disciples. His commission to the Disciples, and Ascension.

I think if we were to ask which Gospel is in the correct chronological order, I would have to go with John. John was the only one of the Gospel writers, to be present at all the accounts he mentioned. Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote from what they were told or heard, and not from direct involvement. But since they all agree on the basics, I don’t have a problem with the different events mentioned by some, and not the others. If we take each, and build on them I feel we have a very complete report on the events, which is the way we should study the Bible.

If all the Gospels agreed in every word, then I would have a reason to question the validity of any of them. Its rare when all the witnesses to any event report it in the same words, or in the same exact way. If they do! there is usually, something rotten in Denmark about the accounts.

 

[wavy]

What we have with the gospels are four, mostly independent, accounts of the resurrection which possibly relied on many eyewitnesses. Differences in detail are precisely what we should expect. I am not convinced that there is any discrepancy as to when Jesus first appeared to the apostles.

Matthew and Luke are dependent upon Mark, gave their source no credit, and altered his words wherever they saw fit in order to suit their agendas. Example below.

Luke and John place Jesus in Jerusalem on the evening of his resurrection for his first post-resurrection appearances. Mark's gospel likely ends with verse 8, saying nothing of post-resurrection appearances but does mention that he would be in Galilee. Matthew places a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee and John also contains an appearance in Galilee. Since Galilee is, in my opinion based on maps, likely a few days journey north of Jerusalem, it is likely all accounts are correct, they just summed things up differently, including and excluding certain details based on what they wanted to say.

John's Galilean post-resurrection appearance is in the epilogue, which many scholars consider to be an addition, and in any case, it's placed after the Jerusalem appearances and therefore conflicts with the chronologies in other gospels.

In Mk xvi.7 (likewise in the parallel account in Matthew) the angel at the tomb tells the disciples to go forward into Galilee to see Jesus, as he earlier instructed. In Lk xxiv.6, however, these words are altered so that Jesus merely said this in Galilee giving Luke the opportunity to have his appearances take place in Jerusalem, where the disciples were commanded to stay until Pentecost. There are no Galilean appearances.

This is one of the most obvious and major discrepancies in the gospel resurrection narratives.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Here is my opinion. All of the Gospel accounts agree on the fundamental aspects. Burial, Resurrection, Jesus appearance to Mary, and the Disciples. His commission to the Disciples, and Ascension.

I think if we were to ask which Gospel is in the correct chronological order, I would have to go with John. John was the only one of the Gospel writers, to be present at all the accounts he mentioned. Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote from what they were told or heard, and not from direct involvement. But since they all agree on the basics, I don’t have a problem with the different events mentioned by some, and not the others. If we take each, and build on them I feel we have a very complete report on the events, which is the way we should study the Bible.

If all the Gospels agreed in every word, then I would have a reason to question the validity of any of them. Its rare when all the witnesses to any event report it in the same words, or in the same exact way. If they do! there is usually, something rotten in Denmark about the accounts.

Free had already mention this above, but since you're given to doubt ad litteram parallel accounts, what do you do in those many cases where the gospels record the exact same thing without variation? Do you question their validity then?

And there are enough major discrepancies (see example above) between the resurrection narratives to doubt that they have any complementary testimony.

Finis,
Eric

 

[samuel]

In documents as large as the Gospels, if indeed they are true. Some agreement of an exact nature would be expected.

But if it were in a really large percentage, it would seem as rehearsed. I really do not see any discrepancies in the Gospels only the difference of recollection, and accounting of four different writers. The add in accounts do not matter, it is the way you or I might give account of something. What matters are the basic facts.

One thing that matters significantly, is the idea Mark was the first Gospel writer, and the others copied him. This is the idea of corrupt so called scholars, that unfortunately do not have any evidence for their ignorant accusations what so ever. Except their screwy idea!, of some Gospel called "Q" existing. They are some of the same, that have given us all these corrupted Bibles. But it is like Dark Matter, no one has seen it, or can feel it, or even knows anything about it, but to some of the screwball scientist, it exists. Bah Humbug. :bigfrown

 

[wavy]

I really do not see any discrepancies in the Gospels only the difference of recollection, and accounting of four different writers. The add in accounts do not matter, it is the way you or I might give account of something. What matters are the basic facts.

Which is the basic fact then? Did Jesus appear to his disciples in Galilee or Jerusalem?

One thing that matters significantly, is the idea Mark was the first Gospel writer, and the others copied him. This is the idea of corrupt so called scholars, that unfortunately do not have any evidence for their ignorant accusations what so ever. Except their screwy idea!, of some Gospel called "Q" existing.

The Q hypothesis isn't essential to the overwhelming consensus of scholars on Markan priority. Please learn your facts before you criticize something as 'ignorant'.

They are some of the same, that have given us all these corrupted Bibles. But it is like Dark Matter, no one has seen it, or can feel it, or even knows anything about it, but to some of the screwball scientist, it exists. Bah Humbug. :bigfrown

Yeah...whatever you say.


Finis,
Eric

 

[researcher]

if you read matthew, mark, luke and john.
there are some pretty substantial differences in the resurrection
can any one explain this or did one of the scribes mess up? why hasnt anyone fixed it either?
i have heard "they are true and they are based on a different point of view" which doesnt make sense because obviously someone is wrong. if i drove my car down the street and stopped at a red light. the story shouldnt change

They were probably writing from memory. Small details change in the mind over time.

 

[samuel]

The major issue is there are always those trying to prove some discrepancy, in the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. To begin with these are doubters, scoffers, men without faith. Of which the scriptures said, would appear in the latter times.

The Bible only contains discrepancies for those seeking them, and truth for those looking toward salvation. The reality is Jesus did arise, a fact stated by the Gospel writers, witnessed by Paul on the road to Damascus. Of which he said that there were over 500 witness he could call, most of whom were alive at the time of his writing.

At no time are we asked to believe all that is in the Scriptures, but we are saved by faith, and believing in the Son of God; Jesus Christ. That faith comes not from scholarly reasoning, or questioning ever little word but is a gift from God, which all men do not have.

 

[wavy]

The major issue is there are always those trying to prove some discrepancy, in the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. To begin with these are doubters, scoffers, men without faith. Of which the scriptures said, would appear in the latter times.

The Bible only contains discrepancies for those seeking them, and truth for those looking toward salvation. The reality is Jesus did arise, a fact stated by the Gospel writers, witnessed by Paul on the road to Damascus. Of which he said that there were over 500 witness he could call, most of whom were alive at the time of his writing.

At no time are we asked to believe all that is in the Scriptures, but we are saved by faith, and believing in the Son of God; Jesus Christ. That faith comes not from scholarly reasoning, or questioning ever little word but is a gift from God, which all men do not have.

Again, whatever you say...But see red highlight. I would emend to 'The Bible only contains discrepancies for those who can read'.


Finis,
Eric

 

[sforces]

Are you blind? If you read all 4 ressurection accounts they all have some pretty big discrepancies. I wasnt looking for any, and I did not write the bible. I know what I read. When I finished reading Matthew and went to Mark and upon readin the resurrection there I said wait a minute, why is this different then Matthew. It seems that someone messed up. I have heard so many explanations, and not one of them can explain the discrepancy or address it. I love and believe in god and always have.

The major issue is there are always those trying to prove some discrepancy, in the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. To begin with these are doubters, scoffers, men without faith. Of which the scriptures said, would appear in the latter times.

The Bible only contains discrepancies for those seeking them, and truth for those looking toward salvation. The reality is Jesus did arise, a fact stated by the Gospel writers, witnessed by Paul on the road to Damascus. Of which he said that there were over 500 witness he could call, most of whom were alive at the time of his writing.

At no time are we asked to believe all that is in the Scriptures, but we are saved by faith, and believing in the Son of God; Jesus Christ. That faith comes not from scholarly reasoning, or questioning ever little word but is a gift from God, which all men do not have.

 

[researcher]

There are discrepancies probably because the NT is a bunch of letters/recollections to others. Some of the things in the letters came from the writer's own mind and not everything is necessarily God inspired.

I believe there are three things in the NT letters

1. Recollection of events from the mind (poss with some help from the HS)
2. Revelations given to the apostles directly from God
3. Teachings/examples from what the apostles believed/understood (which came from their minds)

Like the scribe who when he becomes a disciple brings old (understanding) and new. Paul probably would have fit into that description.