Jesus' Use Of Mountains In The Easter Context

I've written before about agreements among the gospels concerning some language Jesus used in the Easter context. In a post last year, I wrote about agreement among the gospels and Acts regarding Jesus' use of mountains. Something I didn't note in that post is that a couple of those passages are in the context of resurrection appearances. And they're in different documents written by different authors (Matthew 28:16, Acts 1:12). Something else they have in common is that both mountain settings seem to be ones Jesus chose ahead of time for some highly significant purpose (the Great Commission, the ascension) rather than just being a setting he chose for some lesser purpose (e.g., as a place to rest). So, these two resurrection accounts agree about that sort of behavior by Jesus, and similar behavior is seen in many non-resurrection contexts in all four of the gospels. Those characteristics add credibility to the accounts.

The Diversity Of The Empty Tomb Sources

I've argued elsewhere that the empty tomb was affirmed not just by the early Christians, but also by both their early Jewish opponents and their early Gentile opponents. In the post just linked, I argue for Justin Martyr's citation of a first-century Jewish source corroborating the empty tomb, and I discuss some other significant material in Justin. I've also written, here, about the tenacity of the Jewish corroboration, so that it persisted well beyond the time of the apostles and adapted to ongoing circumstances. The original Jewish explanation of the empty tomb, that Jesus' disciples stole the body, made far more sense early on than it did later. So, though some Jews continued to use the explanation that the disciples stole the body, others developed another argument, that a gardener took the body.

Not only are these large groups affirming the empty tomb diverse (Christians, non-Christian Jews, pagans), but there had to be a diversity of individuals within each of these groups. Paul was a former Pharisee and persecutor of Christians, and he would have had a substantial amount of knowledge of what non-Christian Jews knew about and were saying about the empty tomb. James would have had the knowledge of a family member who had close connections to other relatives of Jesus. If Jesus had received some other sort of burial than what the early Christians reported, such as being placed in some kind of family tomb, James would have been in a good position to know it. The Jewish leaders who had spent years working against Jesus and had arranged to have him crucified surely would have monitored what was going on and would have formulated a response to ongoing circumstances. Or think of Pilate's involvement in the events surrounding Jesus' death, including the entombing of the body and what happened immediately thereafter. Pilate not only had an opportunity to shape both Jewish and Gentile non-Christian views on these subjects, but also may have kept a relevant written record of some kind.

Even if one or more sources like the ones just mentioned were apathetic, careless, or some such thing, it's unlikely that all of them were and that they all erred in the same direction. The best explanation for such widespread affirmation of the empty tomb is that the tomb was empty.

Why only one appearance to Paul?

I mentioned the resurrection appearance to Paul in my last post, citing 1 Corinthians 15:8. It's noteworthy that Paul only refers to one appearance and calls it "last of all". That's harmonious with what Luke reports in Acts. The appearance to Paul is narrated three times in Acts, but it's limited to one appearance. By contrast, there were a few appearances to Peter mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, and some of the other apostles also saw the risen Jesus more than once. We're often told that the apostles were highly disunified, that their followers competed with one another, etc. So, why did neither Paul nor Luke claim more than one appearance to Paul? As N.T. Wright commented in another context, concerning James:

"In particular, if it is true that stories of people meeting Jesus were invented in order to legitimate leaders in the early church, it is remarkable that we hear nothing, throughout the gospel stories, of James the brother of Jesus….Why does he, too, not run a race against Peter [as in John 20:3-8]? Would that not have been a convenient fiction to clothe early ecclesial power struggles?" (The Resurrection Of The Son Of God [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003], 610)

The fact that Paul only claimed one appearance also goes against the notion that he was prone to hallucinations, delusional, overly imaginative, etc.

The Timespan Of The Resurrection Appearances

Much is made of alleged inconsistencies among the New Testament resurrection accounts. Their common ground is often underestimated. One thing they have in common that doesn't get discussed much is the shortness of the period when the large majority of the appearances occurred. I'm allowing an exception for the later appearance to Paul, but he acknowledges that his experience was unusual (1 Corinthians 15:8). Paul has the other appearances occurring before the one to him. And the gospels and Acts align well with what Paul reports. Luke puts the pre-Pauline appearances within a forty-day timeframe (Acts 1:3). John refers to multiple weeks of appearances (John 20:26), but doesn't exceed the forty days referred to by Luke. They're consistent. Matthew and Mark don't set down a timeframe, but the modest amount of appearance material in both gospels (Mark does anticipate the appearance in Galilee, though he doesn't narrate it) lines up well with the sort of shorter timespan found in the other sources.

A good way to appreciate this agreement among the sources is to think of how easily they could have disagreed and what motives they could have had for doing so. Reports of later resurrection appearances could have been used by later church leaders to get more authority or attention. Even among the original apostles, if there wasn't much concern about accuracy, carefulness, and such, then why think all of the sources would end up with the same timespan? Why wouldn't one or more of them extend the pre-Pauline appearances out to several months, a few years, or whatever other length of time?

There isn't maximal evidence of agreement among the sources on these issues. There is some ambiguity. But there is substantial agreement in a context in which they could easily have disagreed a lot instead.

Arguing For Resurrection Accounts

We should argue for Jesus' resurrection by appealing to multiple lines of evidence, including the general credibility of the sources. One of the approaches we can take, among others, is to argue for individual accounts. Argue for Matthew's credibility in general, as I've done here, for example, but also argue for the resurrection account in Matthew 28:9-10. Argue for Luke's credibility in general, as I've done here, for instance, but also argue more narrowly for the material on the appearance to Paul in Acts. Argue for the general credibility of Paul, such as his willingness to suffer and die as a Christian, which gives us reason to trust what he reported about the resurrection appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15:7. But we should also argue more narrowly for the appearance to James.

Using Other Miracle Claims To Argue Against Jesus' Resurrection

It's common for critics of the resurrection to argue against it by means of other alleged miracles, such as Marian apparitions. The argument will take on a variety of forms. For example, it will be assumed that such-and-such a miracle didn't happen, yet it has comparable evidence or better evidence than we have for Jesus' resurrection, so we should conclude that both the other miracle and the resurrection didn't happen. Or it will be suggested that since a Christian wants to attribute the other miracle to demonic activity, the resurrection could be considered demonic as well, and Christians have no way to justify viewing the resurrection as Divine while viewing the other miracle as demonic. And so on.

We've written a lot about that kind of objection over the years. See this recent thread (including the comments section) on the Zeitoun Marian apparitions, for example, for brief overviews of many of the issues involved (the explanatory options for miracles, whether the resurrection needs to have better evidence than other miracles, how to evaluate how the evidence for one miracle compares to the evidence for another, why we shouldn't think the resurrection and Christianity as a whole are demonic, why we shouldn't think the resurrection and Christianity as a whole are the result of human psi, etc.). I also wrote a couple of other posts on Zeitoun recently, here and here. Steve Hays wrote some posts about the Fatima Marian apparitions, such as here and here. He and I wrote about the miracles affiliated with the Salem Witch Trials in chapter 8 of the e-book here (pages 102-24). I wrote a post a decade ago that responded to a book that discusses religious miracles, and that post addresses many of the issues involved in comparing Christianity's miracles to the miracles of other religions. That post briefly discusses Sai Baba's miracles, a subject sometimes brought up by critics of Christianity. See here for some brief comments from Steve about Sai Baba. On UFOs, see here for an overview and our archive of posts on the subject here. These are just several examples of what we've written about miracles skeptics often bring up when discussing Jesus' resurrection. You can find a lot of other relevant material in our archives.

These skeptics often don't have sufficient reason to reject any of the miracles they're discussing. Frequently, when they suggest that we know that such-and-such a miracle didn't happen, they're bluffing. Their assumption shouldn't be granted. And they're typically substantially ignorant of the breadth and depth of explanatory options Christianity has for miracles. (Many Christians are highly ignorant as well.) These skeptics also don't know much or act as if they don't know much about the justification Christians (and others) have for placing different miracles in different categories and ranking them in a hierarchy. Sometimes the best response to a skeptical appeal to another miracle is that their miracle doesn't seem to be historical, whereas the resurrection is. But it's often the case that the Christian shouldn't deny that the other miracle occurred, and there isn't much difficulty in reconciling it with the historicity of the resurrection and the truthfulness of Christianity.

Go On To Chapter 16

Don't stop at 1 Corinthians 15 when you're reading that chapter or discussing it in the context of the Easter season or whatever other context. Go on to chapter 16. Notice all of the references to greetings, showing love, rejoicing, etc. Those things are often accompanied by physical interaction: "Greet one another with a holy kiss." (verse 20) The resurrection appearances were, by their nature, meetings among individuals, and meetings, by their nature, frequently involve things like greetings and embracing. The idea that none of the resurrection appearances involved anything more than sight is extremely unlikely, especially given how many resurrection appearances were reported.

For a lengthier discussion of these issues, including more argumentation and documentation, see here.

The Empty Tomb And Affirmation Of It Didn't Occur In An Apathetic Context

I've sometimes come across people who argue that the early corroboration of the empty tomb by non-Christian sources doesn't have much significance, since they may have corroborated it out of apathy. They uncritically accepted what Christians told them.

One of the problems with that sort of explanation is that the context surrounding Jesus' placement in the tomb isn't one of apathetic opposition to Christianity. How did Jesus' body get in the tomb to begin with? You don't arrange to get somebody crucified, then carry out the crucifixion, then proceed with the sort of persecution of Christians that we see reflected in Paul's life (his initial life as a persecutor and the persecution he experienced later as a Christian) if you're apathetic about that crucified individual and his followers. Apathy doesn't sit well with the crucifixion or other aspects of early Christian history. One way to summarize this point in your thinking is to consider the empty tomb as in the middle of a chronological spectrum. Just before it, you have the crucifixion. Just after it, you have the early persecution of Christians, as illustrated in the life of Saul of Tarsus. It doesn't make much sense to think there was apathy in the middle of the spectrum, surrounded by so much non-apathy on both sides.

Furthermore, it's not as though affirmation of the empty tomb would be the only option for people who were apathetic, lazy, or some such thing. You could just be agnostic (e.g., Matthew 21:27, John 9:29).

The best explanation for why the empty tomb was affirmed by both the early Christians and their early opponents (both Jewish and Gentile opponents, as my article linked above argues) is that the tomb was empty.

A Resurrection Appearance To Jude

An Easter issue I've changed my mind about is whether Jude was an apostle in the fullest sense of the term, meaning that he had seen the risen Christ. I've become convinced that he probably was. See my discussions of the Biblical and extrabiblical evidence here and here.

That raises the question, then, of whether the appearance to Jude is mentioned in the New Testament (or elsewhere) and, if so, which one it is. I've argued elsewhere that it's likely that Jesus' brothers didn't convert until the latter half of the forty days referred to in Acts 1:3. There can be an inclination to place the appearance to James before any appearance to one or more of his brothers, since we often think of James as the foremost of the brothers of Jesus (he's listed first in Matthew 12:55 and Mark 6:3, etc.). But we need to be careful here, since a primacy in one or more contexts, such as James' being the oldest of the brothers, having the strongest personality, or having the most historical influence, doesn't mean he has to have had a primacy in every context. Jesus may have appeared to James before appearing to Jude, but not necessarily. My sense is that the appearance could have been as early as the one to more than five hundred in 1 Corinthians 15:6, or it may have been the one mentioned just after the appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15:7. Or it may not be mentioned anywhere in the New Testament or elsewhere. If I had to choose one of the appearances mentioned, I'd go with the one in 1 Corinthians 15:7.

Then He Appeared To James

The resurrection appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should. That's probably largely because we're not given much information about it, including no narrative of the event. Still, more ought to be said about it.

Easter Resources 2025

For an overview of which evidence for Jesus' resurrection to focus on most, see my post here. Steve Hays wrote a lengthier post on how to make a case for the resurrection.

Here are some of the Easter issues we've addressed over the years, with many more in the archives:

The Weaknesses Of The Zeitoun Marian Apparitions

I've written about my overall view of the Zeitoun case elsewhere, such as here and here. What I want to do in this post is expand upon an aspect of the case I've previously addressed more briefly. The apparitions exhibited some weaknesses that make more sense coming from a source of a lower nature than God or Mary.

To what end is all this?

"The love of God and the love of the world are like the scales of a balance: as one falls the other rises. When our natural inclinations prosper, religion is faint and languishes. But when earthly objects wither away and lose their beauty, then the soul begins to cool and flag in its pursuit of them, the seeds of grace take root, and the divine life begins to flourish and prevail. It is therefore of great importance that we should convince ourselves of the emptiness and vanity of creature enjoyments, and persuade our hearts to relinquish our love for them. Let us seriously consider all that our reason, faith, experience, and observation of others can suggest to this end. Let us ponder these matters over and over and fix our thoughts on this truth till we become really persuaded of it. Amidst all our pursuits and designs, let us stop and ask ourselves: To what end is all this? What am I aiming for? Can the flagrant and garish pleasures of sense, or the esteem and affection of silly creatures like myself, satisfy an immortal soul? Have I not tried these things already? Will they taste better and yield me more contentment tomorrow than they did yesterday?" (Henry Scougal, in Robin Taylor, ed., The Life Of God In The Soul Of Man [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2022], approximate Kindle location 815)

The Broader Implications Of 2 Thessalonians 3:10

It's popular to apply the passage to something like a situation in which a man refuses to look for a job and wants to live off of government assistance instead. But the principle in 2 Thessalonians also has a broader application that tells us a lot about why the world is in the state it's in.

The Gospel That Would Go Throughout The World

Tertullian acknowledged that people were justified apart from baptism during Jesus' public ministry. But in response to critics of baptismal regeneration, he wrote, "in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord", whereas now "the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism 13).

A Reminder Of The Importance Of Josephus' Comments On Baptism

Josephus is an important source on some baptismal issues, but he often gets overlooked or underestimated. He refers to how John the Baptist's baptism wasn't meant to be a means of obtaining justification. Dismissing Josephus as a non-Christian isn't an adequate objection, since the significance of his earliness and his knowledge of recent Jewish history don't depend on his being a Christian. You can be a non-Christian, but still be right about something. And if the advocate of baptismal regeneration wants to acknowledge that John's baptism wasn't justificatory, then he needs to address some implications that follow. John's baptism is discussed and practiced alongside the earliest form of baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples (John 3:22-4:2), and that overlap between the two makes more sense if there was more rather than less continuity between the two. In all likelihood, both John's baptism and the earliest baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples were non-justificatory. So, that gives us a double precedent for non-justificatory baptism. That's another problem the advocate of baptismal regeneration has to address. Furthermore, Peter uses language about baptism similar to the language used by Josephus, which adds further evidence for the conclusion that Peter rejected baptismal regeneration. See here for further discussion of that issue. So, Josephus' comments are relevant to multiple baptismal issues and provide multiple lines of evidence against baptismal regeneration.

Problems With Citing 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Against Sola Scriptura

When 2 Thessalonians 2:15 comes up in discussions related to the Christian rule of faith, we can begin by going several verses earlier and asking whether the oral teaching Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 has been preserved. It's a disputed passage that different people have interpreted in different ways.

Beyond the specifics of 2:6, 2 Thessalonians in general is in large part about eschatology. When we look at the early oral eschatological traditions, such as the ones found in Papias and Irenaeus, they're largely premillennial, even though the most prominent modern critics of sola scriptura reject premillennialism. Centuries after Papias, Jerome referred to "a very large multitude" of orthodox Christians who were premillennialists in his day (in Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Isaiah [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2015], pp. 820-21, section 18:1 in the commentary). Augustine was a premillennialist early in his Christian life. Wasn't the church infallibly maintaining the oral eschatological traditions Paul had given the Thessalonians?

And, aside from the teachings in 2 Thessalonians and its surrounding context, such as eschatology, we could ask about oral information in general. The Thessalonians knew a lot about Paul: what he looked like, what his handwriting looked like (3:17), what sort of work he did when he was among them (3:8), etc. Biographers of Paul and many other people would like to have that information. So, why don't these critics of sola scriptura produce it? Or has so much oral information across so many contexts been lost over time, to the point where critics of sola scriptura have to admit that they've lost a large amount of oral information that was part of the original context of 2 Thessalonians?

These considerations don't prove sola scriptura, and an advocate of something other than sola scriptura could avoid an appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or supplement it with whatever else. But factors like what I've mentioned above make it evident that appealing to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 alone isn't enough to make a case against sola scriptura, and 2 Thessalonians as a whole poses some difficulties for the most common alternatives to sola scriptura.

Joe Nickell's Death

I disagreed with him on a lot of issues, but, as with anybody who does the sort of work he did, there's a lot to agree with him about and appreciate as well. Since there's so much that's false and fraudulent in religion and the paranormal, anybody who gives so much of his life to opposing that sort of thing is going to do some good in the process.

One of my memories of him is an appearance he made on "The Sally Jessy Raphael Show" in the 1980s. He was part of a panel with Ed and Lorraine Warren, Ed sitting next to Joe. You can watch it on YouTube. Go here for a segment in which Joe commented, "I've not met a house that I thought was haunted. I think the Warrens have never met a house that they didn't think was haunted." That's hyperbolic as far as the Warrens are concerned, of course, but it's a memorable way of expressing something that's true. Ed and Joe both went too far, in opposite directions.

You can read my response to Joe on the Enfield Poltergeist here. He called the magician Milbourne Christopher "one of the greatest influences on my early career as a magician turned paranormal investigator". Christopher visited the house where most of the events of the Enfield case occurred, and he probably witnessed some paranormal events while he was there. Some of those experiences were recorded on audio tape. You can read about Christopher's visit to the house and his involvement in the case more broadly here. It's a lengthy article, but you can go to the shorter section focused on Christopher to read the most relevant material.

Nickell's prominence in skeptical circles is reflected in some comments Robert Price made fifteen years ago:

"In appealing to the universal facts of human experience, Hume is being neither deductive nor circular. He is merely appealing to what everyone knows: the frequent reports of the extraordinary we hear from UFO abductees, Loch Ness Monster fans, people who see ghosts or who claim psychic powers, always seem to turn out to be bunk upon examination. Ask Joe Nickell. Ask James Randi. Ask the evangelical stage magician Andre Kole, who exposed Filipino 'psychic surgeons.'" (John Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion [Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010], 277)

Nickell, Randi, and Kole are all dead now. There was already good evidence for the supernatural before any of them were born. There's more evidence for the paranormal now than there was then. (See, for example, here and here.) Looking to such people to debunk the paranormal as a whole has always been a false hope.

When Protestants Handle Debates Poorly

I'm not just referring to formal debates, though they're part of the problem. The bigger problem is how Protestants in general handle certain debates in general, whether formal or informal ones.

Bede On Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

I've written before about how opposition to the perpetual virginity of Mary persisted beyond the earliest centuries, into the late patristic and early medieval eras. Bede, writing in the eighth century, uses the present tense to refer to opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary: