The New Investigation of the Resurrection: A Conversation with Andrew Loke
What does the latest evidence show about the resurrection of Jesus? How are naturalistic alternatives faring? Sean interviews professor Andrew Loke about his latest book INVESTIGATING THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.
READ: Two New Resources on the Resurrection (One is FREE): https://bit.ly/3cOoBSF
SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL (https://bit.ly/3fZ9mIw)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/
source
I loved this interview. Thank you 🌞
Unless otherwise noted, the following excerpts are from Andrew Loke’s Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach pages 93-94 and 107.
"A ‘vision’ may be veridical or non-veridical. A veridical vision is defined as having an experience of perception of an external entity in the presence of external causal relation by which that entity is causing that experience of perception, without utilizing the normal processes of sensory perception (Copan and Tacelli eds. 200 p. 197). This is a supernatural vision hypothesis, which is discussed in Chapter 8. A non-veridical vision is defined as having an experience of perception of an external entity in the absence of external causal relation by which that entity is causing that experience of perception. Examples would be hallucination and illusion."
Of course a naturalist will not accept there is such a thing as a “supernatural vision” but let’s continue.
"Craig (1989, pp. 68–69) argues that the New Testament authors consistently refer to resurrection appearances as involving an extramental appearing in the real, objective world. They distinguish this understanding of ‘resurrection appearance’ from that of ‘vision,’ a term which they refer for subjective mental phenomenon."
Stop it right there. Paul does not make a distinction between the appearance to him (which was a vision) and the “appearances” to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8.
and that he appeared (ὤφθη) to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared (ὤφθη) to more than five hundred….
Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to James, then to all the apostles,
and last of all he appeared (ὤφθη) to me also, as to one untimely born.
All Paul says is that the appearance to him was “last” and “untimely” which are obvious references to the timing of the appearance, not a distinction in nature.
Thus, Maurice Casey observes:
“Paul equates his vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road with a Resurrection appearance. We know from the accounts in Acts that this was a vision which other people present at the time did not see or hear properly (Acts 9.3-8; 22.6-11; 26.12-18). Thus it stands within the visionary tradition characteristic of the Judaism of this period.” – Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 457. Also see pages 488-90 for his discussion on visions.
Mark Finney concurs:
“The appearance to five-hundred mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15.6 would fall into this same category (and employs the same verb). Hence, we could assert that Paul knows only of the resurrected Christ as christophany and that he asserts that all other experiences are likewise!” – Mark Finney, Resurrection, Hell and the Afterlife: Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism and Early Christianity, p. 107
Footnote 39: “Paul notes in Galatians 1–2 that he met Peter, James, John, and many other members of the Jerusalem community, so, presumably, in employing ὤφθη for all of these appearances, he is making a clear and informed assertion of the nature of the revelation of the risen Christ. Collins notes of the verb that such language, as a transcendent “manifestation of the divine, did not imply physical sight” (1999: 535; cf. Thiselton 2000: 1198–200).
Back to Loke.
"For example, Luke’s comment that Peter ‘did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision’ (Acts 12:9) illustrates this understanding of vision as being subjective in nature (Wiebe 1998, p. 146)."
But this just shows Peter had trouble distinguishing visions from reality. Despite thinking he was “just seeing a vision,” in verse 11 Peter actually concludes the angel must have been real! Peter also has visions in ch. 10 and 11 of Acts. So that’s two early “eyewitnesses” who were prone to visionary experiences.
"With regards to Acts 26:19, which refers to Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus as ‘heavenly vision’ rather than resurrection appearance, Craig replies this is because Paul’s experience involved subjective elements, such that his other companions did not perceive the appearance of Jesus (Craig 1989, p. 75) and that he alone was converted that day (Chilton 2019, p. 83). Nevertheless, the experience was portrayed in Acts as involving extramental events as well; for example, even though his companions did not perceive the appearance of Jesus, they were portrayed as seeing an appearance of the light and fell to the ground as a result (Acts 26:13). Therefore, Paul’s experience can also be deemed as a resurrection appearance, as other parts of the New Testament affirm (see further the response to Carnley in Section 4.6)."
As for the historicity of the “extramental events” there is no external corroboration for them outside the story itself. If Paul’s “heavenly vision” can be deemed a “resurrection appearance” then it follows that claims of visions (experiences that may be totally imaginary) were accepted as “seeing Jesus” in the earliest reference to the Resurrection (1 Cor 15:5-8). In other words, Jesus’ physical body being located on the earth was not required in order to claim he “appeared.” Please think about the implications of this absurdity. Paul never actually indicates anyone saw Jesus before he went to heaven. So how do we know Paul didn't understand them as all occurring afterwards?
"By saying that Jesus appeared to the apostles ‘over a period of forty days’ (Acts 1:3), Luke probably intends to demarcate resurrection appearances from subjective visions recorded later (e.g. that of Stephen in Acts 7:56 and Ananias in 9:10). According to the New Testament accounts, only Paul saw a resurrection appearance after that 40-day period. Paul uses the phrase ‘untimely born’ in 1 Corinthians 15:8, which implies that there must have been a cessation of the resurrection appearances, and the appearance to Paul was the exception (Allison 2005a, p. 260). Paul also restricts the period of resurrection appearances by the phrase ‘last of all’ (1 Cor. 15:8)."
Yes, Luke is writing much later, after the resurrection story had evolved to a totally physical revivification of Jesus’ corpse that is witnessed flying to heaven after leaving an empty tomb behind. The problem is Paul doesn’t ever hint at any of this stuff and he does not “demarcate” his vision as being any different in nature from what any of the others experienced. “Last of all” and “untimely” are demarcations of timing, and so, cannot be used as implying a distinction in nature.
"Lüdemann (1994) claims that Paul could not distinguish his visual perception from an inner (psychological) versus an external stimulus (physiologic sight), and that Paul used the same Greek word for ‘seeing,’ ōphthē (horaō), in referring to his own encounter with Jesus, as he did in describing all the persons mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:58. Lüdemann generalizes that Paul and Jesus’ disciples all had similar hallucinatory experiences. Carrier (2005a, pp. 151–153; see also Gant 2019, pp. 198–200) likewise argues that what Paul meant to convey in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus’ epiphany to him was normative of the experiences of the other witnesses mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11. He notes that the only first-hand account of Paul’s encounter is in Galatians 1:15–16, which says that he received from Jesus by revelation (apokalypsis). He argues that apokalypsis usually refers to a subjective spiritual encounter (e.g. in 2 Corinthians 12:1–4), which we now know can be purely psychological, even though the person who encountered it thought it to be real. And since the epiphany to Paul was normative, what the others experienced could also have been nonphysical. Ehrman (2014, pp. 207–208) claims that the earliest accounts in Paul portray Jesus resurrected and ascended quickly and appearing from heaven to people on earth, rather than eating fish on earth as Luke portrayed."
Good summary.
Before the claimed resurrection of Jesus can be explored we need to seek the answer to the fundamental question which overshadows the execution and death of Jesus. If Jesus was truly seeded by God then what was its purpose? What did Jesus do for humanity that God could not do himself? Was not God the Almighty One? He needed no help, being self sufficient, all powerful with a host of angels ready at his every bidding. He had no need of a penniless hybrid creation who became a a wandering preacher man.
Unfortunately the accounts given in the Gospels of the finding of the empty tomb of Jesus are conflicting and contradictory and therefore unreliable.
So where was Jesus pre-ascension? Did the disciples not go public with their claims that Jesus was alive during the alleged 40 days between resurrection and ascension? If they did, why, instead of bothering with hypotheses about grave robbery, did the Jewish leaders not simply ask to directly meet Jesus during the 40 days, or come to one of his alleged public preaching sessions that Paul claimed that the disciples claimed were attended by crowds of "500" or more? If they didn't, why did they wait until Jesus had conveniently floated off into the clouds?
Faith is not blind and we are not colorblind either so we can't say that we are color blind in a great attempt to skip over racial prejudice. Can you address why most white leaders don't talk about racial prejudice in the church and how this accomplishes satans goal of dividing believers? People are dying and hurting over skin color right now and you would be a great mouth piece of God to speak about it. Will you use your voice?
Great interview! Are there any plans to release the book as a physical copy?
Just downloaded, can’t wait to read.
It's comical that Sean and Andrew scoff at there being no evidence that aliens exist and yet they'll buy into "a dead man rose from the grave". If God could raise Jesus from the dead, surely he could create aliens. They are desperate for this scenario to be true…why don't they ask if Satan raised Jesus from the dead to perpetuate the greatest lie?
Read Michael Alter's Book "The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry" for a through debunking of the resurrection.
The Resurrection argument fails its own burden of proof.
The only evidence for the resurrection that actually matters are the claimed "post-mortem appearances" since there would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death. Everything else is just a distraction. Appealing to things like the empty tomb, so called "prophecy fulfillment" and alleged martyrdom stories, etc are all irrelevant red herrings since they do not directly support the hypothesis that a dead man became alive again. Thus, the burden of proof is on the one who claims Jesus' resurrection actually happened, or put simply, they need to show these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death.
Well, according to the earliest evidence, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." Paul makes no distinction in regards to the nature, quality, or type of appearances. He uses the same verb ὤφθη (ōphthē) for each one as if to equate them and makes no reference to a separate and distinct Ascension between the appearances. This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances" because it totally changes the meaning of "appeared." Even though Jesus wasn't physically present on the earth, one could still claim that they just "experienced his presence" and that counted as "seeing Jesus." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream!
It's only later, after the gospels are written that we see the appearances grow more physical/corporeal but scholars have long recognized that the gospels don't actually go back to eyewitnesses and the data they contain evolves more fantastic as if a legend is growing. Since Paul is the only verified firsthand source by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus in the first person, and the "appearance" to him was a vision, (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8, then the earliest evidence suggests these were originally subjective spiritual experiences. Thus, the resurrection argument fails to meet the burden of proof – "they really saw Jesus alive again after his death."
Common apologetic objection:
But Paul believed in a physical resurrection, doesn't that mean the appearances would have been physical as well?
Response: Non-sequitur. This is simply conflating Paul's "belief in the resurrection" with the "resurrection appearances" when those aren't the same thing. Even if the earliest Christians believed in a physical resurrection, it does not therefore follow that "they really saw Jesus alive again." Notice how the belief in a physical resurrection is just a belief, not an empirical observation because no one actually witnessed the resurrection itself. Rather, these people are only said to have experienced post-resurrection appearances, the nature of which is the exact point of contention. Apologists who use the red herring of appealing to the physical resurrection are making the further assumption that the physical resurrection necessarily entailed Jesus remained on the earth in order to be physically seen and touched like the later gospels describe. This doesn't follow and it is a separate claim not actually found in Paul's letters, the earliest evidence. As I've argued elsewhere, the earliest belief seems to be that Jesus went straight to heaven simultaneous with or immediately after the resurrection (regardless if it was physical/spiritual), leaving no room for any physical/earthly interactions. Thus, all of the "appearances" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were originally understood to be of the already Exalted Lord in heaven and the gospel portrayals of a physical/earthly Jesus are necessarily false.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/gfx0n0/the_resurrection_argument_fails_to_meet_its/
Thankyou So much ….
My faith is strengthen by listening to this interview. Thanks for this interview and thanks for the free book. Gonna download it and read it. God bless.
Great interview – God bless!
Thank you so much for the book!!!!!
Wow, 14 years on a book – I bet it is great!
Firstly, thankyou for the book..I am Reading book and now just going to finish introduction, love the new approach.