WHERE WE ARE
In Part 4 of this series I showed that Kreeft's Objection #3 against the Myth Theory FAILS because the argument constituting that objection is INVALID and ILLOGICAL. Specifically, the final inference from premise (B) to the conclusion (C) is INVALID:
B. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels invented the following elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
Therefore:
C. The Myth Theory is FALSE.
I also believe that Objection #3 FAILS because all three premises given in support of premise (B) are DUBIOUS:
1. The Gospels (i.e. the four Gospels in the New Testament) portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
A. IF the authors of the Gospels invented the following four elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead, THEN we would find evidence of an earlier account of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT include those four elements.
2. There is no evidence whatever of an earlier account (prior to the Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
Therefore:
B. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels invented the following elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
PREMISE (1) IS DUBIOUS
In Part 4 of this series, I began to argue that premise (1) is DUBIOUS.
I concede that premise (1) is correct in the case of the Gospel of John, but I believe that two key aspects of premise (1) are false or dubious in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke. The two aspects are portraying Jesus as being divine and portraying Jesus as claiming to be divine.
To narrow down the relevant passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I am examining twenty-one points that Kreeft makes using "Scriptural Data" in support of the deity of Jesus (at the end of Chapter 7 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics).
In Part 4 of this series, I argued that we can set aside fifteen of Kreeft's twenty-one points because (a) some are not supported by any Gospel passage, (b) some are supported by Gospel passages only from the Gospel of John, and (c) some criteria clearly apply to people who are NOT divine and thus those criteria fall short of giving a sufficient reason for concluding that a person is divine.
We were left with just six points from Kreeft's list of twenty-one points to consider:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
6. Omnipresent...
7. Omnipotent...
12. Rightly worshiped...
18. The Father testifies to him...
21. Is Lord over the Law...
In Part 5 of this series, I argued that Kreeft's point #6 is DUBIOUS and INADEQUATE because Kreeft only provides passages from the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us NOTHING about the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke, and because in the two passages from Matthew Jesus does NOT clearly state that he is omnipresent, and because the two passaged from Matthew can plausibly be interpreted in a way that Jesus was NOT implying that he was omnipresent.
I also argued that point #7 was DUBIOUS and INADEQUATE because Kreeft only provides a passage from the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us NOTHING about the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke, and because Jesus does NOT clearly state that he is omnipotent and because the claim Jesus makes in the passage from Matthew does NOT imply that Jesus is all-powerful or omnipotent.
Furthermore, I argue that point #18 is INADEQUATE because other than one passage from the Gospel of John, it is supported by only two other Gospel passages, both from the Gospel of Matthew. Once again, this tells us NOTHING about the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke. The significance of the two passages from Matthew depends on what the author of Matthew means by Jesus being "God's son". Since point #2 is focused on that question, I put off my final evaluation of point #18 until we have had a chance to examine point #2.
Finally, I examined point #21, and argued that this point is INADEQUATE because it is based on only one Gospel passage from the Gospel of Luke, so this evidence tells us NOTHING about the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew. This point is also DUBIOUS, because Kreeft's interpretation of the passage in Luke makes no sense, and there is a plausible interpretation of the passage in which Jesus is NOT claiming to be "Lord over the Law" nor to have authority equal to that of God.
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF KREEFT'S POINT #2
It is now time to examine point #2, one of the only two points in Kreeft's list of twenty-one points that seem to me to be both relevant to an evaluation of premise (1) and to be worthy of serious consideration:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
POINT #2: JESUS IS PORTRAYED AS THE SON OF GOD
Unlike some of the other points, Kreeft provides passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke to support point #2. If the title "son of God" implies that Jesus is divine, that Jesus is God, then Kreeft can potentially show that all three of these Gospels portray Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God.
However, we cannot simply assume that the title "son of God" means the same thing to the author of Mark as it does to the author of Matthew, or the author of Luke. It is necessary to determine what each author means by this expression.
FIRST, one should note that in the Old Testament, the phrase "son of God" is applied to persons or beings who are NOT God. The nation of Israel, for example, is called God's son:
1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 The more I called them,
the more they went from me;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals,
and offering incense to idols.
(Hosea 11:1-2, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
Immediately after calling Israel "my son", God complains about the Israelites worshiping idols. Clearly, God views the Israelites as sinful and imperfect. So, being "God's son" does NOT imply being perfect or being God, at least not in this passage from the Old Testament.
Individual Israelites are also called "sons of the LORD your God" in the Old Testament:
1 You are sons of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave a bald spot above your forehead for the dead.
2 For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His personal possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
(Deuteronomy 14:1-2, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)
The use of the plural "sons" here, indicates that each Israelite (at least each male Israelite) was considered a "son of God". But individual Israelites were sinful imperfect people who were mortal. So, individual Israelites were NOT God. Once again, the Old Testament uses the title "son of God" of people who were NOT God.
Angels are called "sons of God" in the Old Testament:
Again, there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.
(Job 2:1, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)
In this passage, Satan, who is a rebellious or fallen angel, appears before God along with angels who still serve God. The obedient angels are called "sons of God" here. But angels were created by God, according to the Bible, so they are created beings, not the creator of all beings. Angels thus are NOT God. So, an angel is called a "son of God" in the Old Testament, and this does NOT imply that the angel is God.
The Old Testament book of Genesis also refers to beings called "sons of God":1 Now it came about, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
[...]
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
(Genesis 6:1-2, & 4, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)
There are three main theories about what the phrase "sons of God" means in this passage from Genesis.
One common theory is that the "sons of God" referred to in this passage are fallen angels, that is to say: demons. Clearly, a demon is NOT God. On this theory, being a "son of God" does NOT imply that the person or being in question is God.
Another theory, held by Augustine, is that the "sons of God" in this passage were descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. In that case, the "sons of God" were ordinary human beings. The descendants of Seth were sinful and imperfect human beings, so a great-grandson of Seth, for example, would NOT be God. On this theory, being a "son of God" does NOT imply that the person in question is God.
A third theory is that the "sons of God" were heroes, great legendary kings. But kings are imperfect and mortal men, so even a great heroic king is NOT God. On this theory, the phrase "son of God" does NOT imply that the person in question is God.
Psalm 82 in the Old Testament uses the term "sons of the Most High":
2 How long will you judge unjustly
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
Save them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know nor do they understand;
They walk around in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
7 Nevertheless you will die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
(Psalm 82:2-7, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)
The early question "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?" relates to persons who were judges, people who had authority to settle disputes and to punish wrongdoing. So, in verse 6, when the author says "You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High." this would seem to be directed at rulers or judges or others who have positions of authority in their communities.
He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father,my God, and the Rock of my salvation!’
(Psalm 89:26, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
This psalm is all about how much God cares about David, so there is no suggestion here that David is wrong to call God his "Father". If God is David's "Father", that implies that David is God's son. But David was a sinful and imperfect human being; David was NOT God. So, once again this passage implies that a person can be "God's son" and yet NOT be God.
Psalm 2 is also about David being God's son, but in this case, it is God who declares this to be so:
I will tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have begotten you.
(Psalm 2:7, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
If God said to David "You are my son", then David was God's son (unless God was lying to David). But we know that David was a sinful and imperfect human being, so we know that David was NOT God. Therefore, this passage clearly implies that a person can be "God's son" and yet NOT be God.
12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.
37 son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan,38 son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.
(Luke 3:37-38, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
But Adam was an imperfect and mortal human being, so the author of Luke calls someone who was clearly NOT God a "son of God".
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
(Matthew 5:8-9, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)
And Jesus taught people that some of them were "sons of your Father who is in heaven":
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
(Matthew 5:43-45, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)
35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;36 for they cannot even die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
(Luke 20:35-37, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)
But Jesus believes that only God is perfectly good, so although some humans "are considered worthy" to be raised from the dead and given eternal life, those are still imperfect humans, and thus none of them are God. Jesus thus implies that some people who are NOT God are, nevertheless, "sons of God".
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
(Matthew 16:15-20, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
62 The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?”
63 But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
(Matthew 26:62-63, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
Matthew 27
42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.
43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’”
(Matthew 27:42-44, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
Luke 4
40 As the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various kinds of diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on each of them and cured them.
41 Demons also came out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah.
(Luke 4:40-41, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
Luke 22
66 When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council.
67 They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us.” He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
68 and if I question you, you will not answer.
69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”
70 All of them asked, “Are you, then, the Son of God?” He said to them, “You say that I am.”
(Luke 22:66-70, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
Mark 1
1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
(Mark 1:1, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
NOTE: "Christ" is another word for "messiah".
Mark 14
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?”
61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 Jesus said, “I am; ...
(Mark 14:60-62, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
The frequent pairing of the title "the Messiah" and "the son of God" indicates that these phrases have the same or very similar meanings.
An even stronger indication that they have basically the same meaning is that "the son of God" is assumed to imply "the Messiah". For example, in Luke 4:41, some demons state that Jesus is "the Son of God" and the narrator interprets this to mean that "they knew that he was the Messiah."
Similarly in Matthew 16:16 Peter proclaims that Jesus is "the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” In response, Jesus tells his disciples "not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." But what about telling others that Jesus was "the Son of the living God"? Presumably, that was also to be kept quiet, but Jesus only mentions the title "the Messiah", so Jesus assumes here that telling his disciples to NOT proclaim him to be "the Messiah" implies that they are also NOT to proclaim him to be "the Son of the living God". Furthermore, Jesus is assuming here that his disciples will understand that they are NOT to proclaim Jesus to be either "the Messiah" or "the Son of the living God". So, this passage indicates that both Jesus and his twelve disciples understood these titles to have basically the same meaning.
One might argue that Jesus and his twelve disciples understood the title "the Messiah" to imply that Jesus was God. But that would be a difficult case to make, because that is not how most Jews in that time understood the meaning of the title "the Messiah". Kreeft would have to argue that Jesus and his disciples held a view of "the Messiah" that was radically different from the views held by most Jews at that time.
While it does seem that the Gospel of John represents a view of "the Messiah" in which this person is God incarnate, that Gospel was written near the end of the first century, about sixty to seventy years after the death of Jesus. So, there was time for the idea of a divine messiah to develop after the death of Jesus, but we cannot assume that such a concept was common among Jews at the time of Jesus' ministry.
KREEFT'S EVIDENCE FROM THE GOSPELS FOR POINT #2
For the Gospel of Matthew, Kreeft points towards only this one passage:
25 At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants;
26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
(Matthew 11:25-27, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
This passage clearly portrays Jesus as claiming to be the son of God. But this is can be understood as Jesus claiming to be the promised messiah. There is nothing in this passage indicating that Jesus is the creator of the universe, or that Jesus is omnipotent (see my comments on Kreeft's point #7 in Part 5 of this series), or that Jesus is perfectly good, or that Jesus has always existed. There is nothing in this passage that implies that Jesus is God.
For the Gospel of Luke, Kreeft points to two passages. One we have already considered above (Luke 22:66-70). Here is the other passage from Luke:
21 At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
(Luke 10:21-22, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
This is basically the same passage as we just looked at from Matthew Chapter 11. The same points apply here. One can plausibly interpret the claim by Jesus to be the son of God, to mean that he is claiming to be the promised messiah. There is nothing in this passage that implies that Jesus is God.
Now we are down to three passages from the Gospel of Mark given in support of point #2, so the most that Kreeft could show from point #2, at this point, would be that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as claiming to be God. Kreeft's evidence for Matthew and Luke portraying Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God FAILS to show this to be the case.
We have already considered one of the three passages from Mark above (Mark 14:60-62), so we are actually down to just two passages. Here is the first of those passages from Mark in support of point #2:
1 Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country.
2 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard.
3 But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.
4 And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted.
5 Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed.
6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’
8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.
(Mark 12:1-9, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
First, Jesus does not claim to be the "son" of the "Father" in this parable. Second, even assuming that Jesus is claiming to be the "son of God" by telling this parable, that can be understood as meaning that Jesus is claiming to be the promised messiah, and NOT claiming to be God. There is nothing in this passage that implies that the "son" in this story is the creator of the universe, or is omnipotent, or is eternal, or is perfectly good. There is nothing in this passage that implies that the "son" in the story is God.
Now for the final passage from the Gospel of Mark that Kreeft gave in support of point #2:
32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
33 Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.
34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.
35 Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn,
36 or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly.
37 And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.”
(Mark 13:32-37, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
First, Jesus does not claim to be "the Son" about whom he is talking in this passage. Second, if we assume that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son" of "the Father" and that "the Father" refers to God, then although Jesus would be claiming to be the "son of God" that might well only mean that he is claiming to be the promised messiah. Furthermore, Jesus indicates that God (i.e. "the Father") KNOWS things that "the Son" does NOT KNOW. So, according to Jesus, the son of God is NOT omniscient, NOT all-knowing. That implies that the son of God is NOT God. So, in the very passage that Kreeft offers as evidence that Jesus is portrayed as claiming to be God, we find that Jesus is claiming to NOT be God. This passage is evidence AGAINST Kreeft's view!
Kreeft makes no attempt to show that the phrase "son of God" in Matthew implies that the person or being in question is God. Kreeft makes no attempt to show that the phrase "son of God" in Mark implies that the person or being in question is God, and Kreeft makes no attempt to show that the phrase "son of God" in Luke implies that the person or being in question is God. Given that the Old Testament consistently uses the term "son of God" to apply to persons or beings who are NOT God, and given that the New Testament at least in some passages uses the term "son of God" to apply to persons who are NOT God, it is far from clear that the term "son of God" when applied to Jesus implies that Jesus was God.
Furthermore, the actual use of the term "son of God" in Matthew, Mark, and Luke seems to show that this title has basically the same meaning as the title "Messiah", so we have good reason to doubt that the term "son of God" when applied to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, implies that Jesus is God. Therefore, Kreeft's point #2 FAILS to provide solid and adequate support for premise (1), and so does point #18, which is also based on the questionable assumption that the title "son of God" in Matthew implied that Jesus was God.
There is now only one more point remaining out of Kreeft's twenty-one points of "Scriptural Data" in support of Jesus being God (or being portrayed by the Gospels as being God) and/or in support of Jesus being portrayed by the Gospels as claiming to be God:
12. Rightly worshiped...
Dear Mr. Bowen,
ReplyDeleteI have been reading some of your older posts from the Secular Outpost and I have a question about the one entitled: If Jesus Rose from the Dead, then God does NOT Exist. I know this is off the topic of the Defending the Myth Theory series, but I cannot write comments over at the Secular Outpost. My question has to do with your claim that „If Jesus was a perfectly morally good person, then he would have rejected his own name and chosen a new name for himself. But Jesus did not do this, so he was a morally flawed person”. The reasoning behind this claim, as I understand it, is that Jesus’ name (Yeshua) derives from the name Joshua (Yehoshua). In the Old Testament, Joshua, allegedly at God’s command, led the attack against the Canaanites and killed all in his path, regardless of age and gender. However, God probably didn’t issue such a terrible command and Joshua probably behaved in a highly immoral way. Because Jesus was named after Joshua, and since Joshua seems to have been a monster (morally speaking), Jesus should have wanted to distance himself from Joshua. One way of doing so was for Jesus to renounce his name and replace it with a new one, or at least this is what a morally good person would have done.
Assuming my understanding of your reasoning is correct, my question is: How do we know (or how likely is it) that Jesus was named after the Joshua that led the attack against the Canaanites?
The relationship between the two names does not entail that Jesus was named after that Joshua. It could also be the case that Jesus was named after some other Joshua or after someone else named Jesus or after someone with a name different than Jesus and Joshua, but still related to the name Jesus. Furthermore, it seems relevant to know if the Jews living in Palestine when Jesus was born named their newborns after Old Testament characters more often than they named them after other people, such as relatives or people who made a positive difference in their lives.
I do have a question about the Myth Theory as well: What does the Myth Theory have to say about the creedal statement contained in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5?
Thank you.
If someone had a baby boy in Germany in 1947 and named the boy "Adolf" it wouldn't really matter whether the boy was named after "Adolf Hitler" or named after his great grandfather. The parents would KNOW that the name "Adolf" would remind people of "Adolf Hitler", and so it would appear that they were naming their son in honor of the bloodthirsty murderous psychopath named "Adolf Hitler".
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, even if Jesus was supposedly named after a grandfather or uncle named "Yeshua", his parents would KNOW that the name "Yeshua" would be viewed as being in honor of the bloodthirsty murderous psychopath in the Old Testament named "Yeshua". In any case, if Jesus KNEW that "Yeshua" was a bloodthirsty murderous psychopath, then Jesus was morally flawed for failing to renounce the name he was given, in order to make clear to everyone that he was NOT an admirer of the bloodthirsty murderous psychopath named "Yeshua" in the Old Testament, no matter what reason or excuse his parents had for giving him the name of that morally depraved warrior.
"I do have a question about the Myth Theory as well: What does the Myth Theory have to say about the creedal statement contained in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5?"
ReplyDeleteHere are the key verses in that passage:
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."
First, "raised on the third day" might have meant "raised up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God" as opposed to "raised physically from the dead into a new immortal body".
Second, even if it meant "raised physically from the dead into a new immortal body" this could have been intended as a MYTH, as opposed to a literal historical event.
Third, Jesus appearing to Peter and to other disciples is compatible with both of these possibilities. It is compatible with the idea that Jesus being "raised" meant "raised up to heave to sit at the right hand of God" or it could refer to the mythical story that Jesus was "raised physically from the dead into a new immortal body". In other words, Jesus making an appearance does NOT necessarily imply Jesus being present in a tangible physical body.