Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Goose]

But at least they are imaginative.

Why? Are you still championing the argument the resurrection gets not a whisper in the historical record? Do I need to smack that argument down again?

Here we have doctors pronouncing people dead when they weren't dead.

You argued by definition that resurrections were impossible. I demonstrated by definition that a resurrection was possible and had been documented. As I predicted you’d argue in a circle to wiggle your way out. They weren’t dead even though they had been pronounced dead such as in this case. The evidence they weren’t really dead and it was a misdiagnosis is that they came back to life. They couldn’t have really been dead because returning to life after death is impossible. Entirely circular.

When rigor mortis sets in dead means dead.

Is that your professional medical opinion? At any rate, rigor mortis sets in within a few hours. So by your definition of dead, Jesus was dead since he was dead for quite some time.

I said we are dealing with today's medical advances not tomorrow's. I accept that some thousand years from now we may revive corpses. If you want to suggest the Lazarus syndrome for Christ, then you are saying Christ wasn't dead, just wrongly diagnosed, like the lady who sued. That destroys your claim. And if he wasn't dead, well that opens up lots of possibilities.

Try to stay with what is being argued. The Lazarus phenomena wasn’t introduced as a proof for Jesus’ resurrection. It was introduced to demonstrate you cannot logically argue a resurrection is impossible without eventually arguing in a circle. You did and it proved my point. So thank you.

You should try to be consistent and keep to one hypothesis at a time.

Pot meet kettle. You’d have more credibility making these types of comments if you hadn’t spent most the debate flip flopping and tripping over your own arguments. Did Pliny witness the eruption or not? Did Pliny write the letter to Tacitus or not? Do you accept eyewitness accounts from antiquity or not?

You've generously negated your own argument here since you instanced cases where medical opinion was astoundingly wrong. I believe you mean some people have given their medical opinion of what may have been the state of Christ's body and they have explained such things as effusions of blood and water. YOU say that the entire Medical Association of America took part in this belated post mortem and issued its pronouncement. If what you say is the case, then the Association is being silly.

If you would like to argue the American Medical Association is wrong in the opinion regarding the death of Jesus on the cross please cite your experts. Or are you a qualified physician? If you aren’t then I would suggest calling the Association silly, is itself silly.

I know, I know, I've gone and used reductio ad absurdum. Phew!

Meh. That would be giving your rant far too much credit. You’ve knocked down a big fat strawman though. I'll give you that.

[Goose]

Now you are attempting to indicate that of course they underwent hard core persecution, it's just that there was no mention of it.
...

But for the first dozen years or so the harsh persecution that you insist occurred is nowhere to be found in scripture.
...

Scripture makes no mention of Paul persecuting the apostles whatsoever.
...

You are having a conspicuously hard time establishing it as anything other than a declaration however, because in fact no such harsh persecution can be discovered in the evidence that exists in scripture.

No evidence eh?

�As [Peter and John] were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening.� – Acts 4:1-4

“But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail.� – Acts 5:17-18

�But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.� But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them.� – Acts 5:29-33

�They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.� – Acts 5:40

[The Greek word here for “flogged� is derō which is defined by Strong’s as “A primary verb; properly to flay, that is, (by implication) to scourge, or (by analogy) to thrash: - beat, smite.� It’s the same word used for Jesus’ flogging (Luke 22:63).]

� Now when they [the Jews and high priest-Acts 7:1] heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at [Stephen]... But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse. When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!� Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!� Having said this, he fell asleep.� – Acts 7:54, 57-60

�Saul was in hearty agreement with putting [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.� – Acts 8:1-3

But go ahead and tell us one more time there is no evidence of early persecution.

One beating, two arrests and one guy dead at the hands of a mob.

And in your opinion that constitutes “relative freedom� (your words). But later when Herod cracked down and killed James and arrested Peter that was when things got “rough for the apostles� (again your words) and when the real persecution began, right?

So let me get this straight. The early beatings, imprisonments, and death of Stephen from the Jews and the great persecution under Saul who dragged people from their homes and through them in prison was a relative cake walk for the apostles. But a few years later when Herod turned up the heat, had James killed, and Peter imprisoned that was when things were really rough for the apostles, right?

Aside from being hilariously inconsistent it is also a blatantly self serving double standard you’ve put together there. Nicely done.

Was the author of Acts present to witness any of this, and so to get the chronology of events correct? Nope! The story is derived from Paul's later version of events. But Paul was the afflicted man, blind, sick and delirious at the time, remember?

Well hey, if now you are going to argue for the possible inaccuracy of Luke or Paul’s inability to properly recall the events in the right order then your whole argument falls apart, not that you had one in the first place. What makes us think either Luke or Paul got the three days without water part right if they couldn’t get right a simple thing like the chronology of whether Paul was without water before or after the experience on the road?

I wouldn't have to make assumptions about them if I could read their testimonies on what they witnessed.

Thank you for conceding you’ll have to make ad hoc assumptions about Paul’s companions.

Excuse me for taking what scripture says at it's word. I don't always do that, obviously. Except in this case I have no reason to suspect it's accuracy one way or the other.

You don’t seem to be able to refute the point that “three days� didn’t necessarily mean 72hrs in the ANE understanding.

Heracles was widely believed to have been an actual historical figure in ancient times, as were the race of Cyclops and that was my point.

The point that Eusebius or Clement, or other early church fathers, believed the mythology of Hercules has yet to be established. I couldn’t find in your links where this was established either. If you had read a little further to page 671 of the first link you provided you would've seen how it is all brought into context and actually argues against your position.

[Danmark]

Do you accept eyewitness accounts from antiquity or not?

What "eyewitness accounts?" Leaving aside the issues of bias, accuracy, and supernatural claims, there are NO first person "eyewitness accounts" of the supposed "resurrection."
In addition, unlike Pliny's account of volcanic eruption, there is no independent physical evidence for what is claimed. The error you repeatedly make is the comparison between other witnesses records of historical events that do not challenge physical reality and the 3d hand accounts of fantastic events that defy scientific understanding.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is it POSSIBLE that there is another explanation? I am NOT asking about any specific alternative, but asking if an alternative is POSSIBLE.

Hey, if you have a better explanation than the resurrection, and by better I mean that it more powerfully accounts for all the data (or more data), then feel free to present it.

Notice carefully that the question asks if it is POSSIBLE that there is another explanation. Is that too difficult to address?

Better explanations are not required for unverified claims and speculations.

Notice the word in bold red. "The best overall explanation" has NOT been established. That is an OPINION.

Here is some historical data which would pass any reasonable historical method. None of which on their own invoke any supernatural agency. So you should have no problem accepting them.

Again, "best overall explanation" has NOT been established. Offering "historical data" that have NOT been confirmed does NOT establish "best overall explanation – only an OPINION.

1. Jesus died and was buried.

Agreed that Jesus died (people die, so what).

Burial, however, is unconfirmed – only told in stories by promoters

2. The tomb was found empty.

Unconfirmed – only told in stories by promoters

3. The disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus.

Stories to that effect – sincere belief is no assurance of truth. People apparently sincerely believe they see Elvis.

4. The disciples preached the resurrection in Jerusalem despite persecution.

There are tales about such preaching in promotional literature -- but no confirmation by disconnected sources.

Preaching is no assurance of truth. Joseph Smith is said to have done the same thing – including dying for the cause. Does that provide evidence that his story is the "best explanation"?

5. Paul, an enemy, was converted.
6. James, the brother of Jesus and sceptic, became a leader in the church.

People believing something is no assurance that it is true. People converting from skepticism to Islam do not indicate that the religion or its stories are true.

Conversions are no indication that "resurrection" is the best explanation

7. The rise of Christianity.

Roman adoption of Christianity (for whatever reasons) was instrumental in its rise in popularity. That is no assurance that any "resurrection" occurred.

Do you have an explanation that more powerfully accounts for all the data above than the resurrection?

The "data" above is unconfirmed by sources outside the tales that make the claim.

No one is expected to provide a "more powerful explanation" for legends, myths, folklore, fairytales, fiction, fabrication, or unverified tales.

Because the resurrection does. That’s not an opinion.

I disagree, point by point, that the "data" indicates a "resurrection".

Notice that all the above is an attempt to show that other parts of the story should not be rejected.

which accounts for the most data and provides the strongest explanatory power outstripping all other explanations then there is no logical reason to reject it.

This is a classic example of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance or appeal to ignorance)

If you think that’s an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam then clearly you don’t you know what an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam is. I haven’t argued the resurrection is true on the basis it hasn’t been proven false. I’ve argued that if it is the best explanation we have no logical reason to reject it.

Okay – provided that you ONLY argue that the "resurrection" explanation not be rejected and don't argue that it should be accepted OR that accounts are truthful

Whether it is the "best explanation" is OPINION.

I counter argue that

1) There is no assurance that said body was placed in a tomb
2) There is no assurance that said tomb was found empty

Those are only unverified tales told by promoters

3) If there was an empty tomb (which has not been established – only proposed by some), the best explanation for an (any) empty tomb is NOT that the deceased came back to life and left. That some may have believed or preached is NO assurance that the tales are true.

Remember, there is NO verification of the claims outside the tales that make the claims. "It must be true because they say (or act) so" is irrational.

Many of us have a bias toward natural / real world explanations. Others may prefer to explain things as "supernatural" – (such as diseases are caused by curses or demons, floods and storms are caused by angry gods, etc). We all have biases, so what?

You are welcome to your biases. But your personal biases aren’t logical grounds to declare the resurrection non historical. That’s the point being made.

My point is that the claimed "resurrection" has not been demonstrated to have occurred AND therefore it is illogical to base religious beliefs on the assumption that it did occur.

[Goose]

What "eyewitness accounts?"

1. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness.

�Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…� – 1Peter 1:3-4

1 Peter internally self identifies and its authenticity is undisputed in the early church. If you wish to overturn this you’ll need something much weightier than simply implying the possibility of pseudonymity combined with easily overturned stylistic arguments around such things as the good Greek. The latter of which is easily overturned by an appeal to the letter itself at 5:12 where Peter is likely telling his readers he has used an amanuensis.

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death…� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:22-24

�The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 3:13-15.


2. An eyewitness account in John.

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

Not that we even need it after Irenaeus' testimony, but here is more external evidence for John.

�But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times.� – Eusebius, Church History 3.24.17

�But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.� – Clement, as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.14.7

�Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.� – Origen, as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.25.4-7

Additionally, even if we cannot reasonably establish the Gospel of John’s authorship, which I believe we can, the gospel itself internally claims to be written by a witness.

�And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.� - John 1:14

� And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.� – John 19:35

The epilogue confirmed the text was written by a disciple.

�This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.� - John 21:24


3. An eyewitness account in Matthew

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.�- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.� - Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1

The early church conflated the Hebrew Matthew with our Greek one because in their mind they were the same work. For instance see Eusebius’ CH 3.24.6-9.

Leaving aside the issues of bias, accuracy, and supernatural claims, there are NO first person "eyewitness accounts" of the supposed "resurrection."

Then there is no first person eyewitness account of the eruption of Vesuvius either.

In addition, unlike Pliny's account of volcanic eruption, there is no independent physical evidence for what is claimed.

What kind of physical evidence would you expect for a resurrection?

The error you repeatedly make is the comparison between other witnesses records of historical events that do not challenge physical reality and the 3d hand accounts of fantastic events that defy scientific understanding.

How is this an error to compare eyewitness accounts?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 306 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Ya know guys, you're failing in one key assumption:

That there were Roman guards to guard a unimportant corpse, that for some reason wasn't buried, and that these guards fell asleep, etc..

You with me?
Just because the story invents a couple of guards, that fell asleep, may make the story seem more credible, but it seems to me, you simply haven't challenged your assumptions enough.

Why were Romans guarding a Jewish criminal's corpse?
Only one reason I can see, to presuppose an air of wonder and credibility that wouldn't exist, if there were no guards.

And dspite the account in the NT, there should be tons of surviving literature about Lazarus, what did he do after? Did he go on tour, meet important people?

No, because plot supporting character usually don't get their own series.

Have I not made myself abundantly clear? Roman guards were not guarding the body of Jesus. Gospel Matthew makes no such claim. If the governor ordered it to be so, then I guess it would have been so. But that's not what occurred according to Gospel Matthew.

If your point is that the resurrection of Lazarus is found only in Gospel John, it's a valid observation. Shouldn't such a thing, if true, had been something approaching common knowledge? Yet, much like the "night of the living dead" story found ONLY in Matt.27:52-53, no one else seemed to have been aware of such things. The story of the guard at the tomb itself is only found in Gospel Matthew, and nowhere else. The same is true for Gospel Matthew's "massacre of the innocents." Absolutely NO other information on these claims exists. How these authors seemed to have such information known to no one else is truly amazing. Not to say completely unbelievable.
Inconsistency piled upon inconsistency leads to one inevitable conclusion. Much of the story is clearly pure nonsense. As if a story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying away doesn't make that abundantly clear anyway.

[Goose]

No one is expected to provide a "more powerful explanation" for legends, myths, folklore, fairytales, fiction, fabrication, or unverified tales.

Are you arguing all of it was a myth? If so please demonstrate that.

[Danmark]

What "eyewitness accounts?"

1. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness.

�Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…� – 1Peter 1:3-4[/quote]
Peter is the only source you listed who was in a position to actually witness any evidence of the resurrection. Yet he fails to do so. In passing he refers to the doctrine of the resurrection, but Peter does not claim to have witnessed it, nor does he claim to have personally witnessed any evidence of the resurrection.

The rest of your sources are anonymous and none claim to have been a direct eyewitness.

You've also glossed over the difference between a historian who reports a natural event there is external physical evidence to support, and an anonymous person reporting a supernatural event there is ZERO external evidence that corroborates the event.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 199 by Claire Evans]

Now why would Jewish sources not mention the resurrection and refute it? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if the Romans did know about the resurrection, they just swept it under the carpet in fear of Christianity spreading.

The ancient Romans were extremely tolerant of religion. Sure, the emperor was promoted as being a god, but local religions were tolerated. Need I remind you of Pilate having close council with the Jewish priests? Why would a Roman leadership that 'knows' of the resurrection keep it secret?

Basically, your entire hypothesis over the past couple of days Claire, hinges on the fact that no-one really talked about the supposed resurrection. You use that as proof of some sort of conspiracy, as evidence that the resurrection did happen.
No, I don't accept this. If I did, I'd have to accept the fact that other tall tales weren't talked about much as being evidence in favour of those tall tales. There's lots of claims you don't believe, claims that weren't talked about much. What's stopping you from believing them?

Why keep it a secret? What a huge embarrassment that there were guards there to protect from theft of the body and Jesus gets out anyway. I think if they recorded it as official history, they'd be the laughing stock.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

No evidence eh?

�As [Peter and John] were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening.� – Acts 4:1-4

“But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail.� – Acts 5:17-18

�But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.� But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them.� – Acts 5:29-33

�They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.� – Acts 5:40

[The Greek word here for “flogged� is derō which is defined by Strong’s as “A primary verb; properly to flay, that is, (by implication) to scourge, or (by analogy) to thrash: - beat, smite.� It’s the same word used for Jesus’ flogging (Luke 22:63).]

� Now when they [the Jews and high priest-Acts 7:1] heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at [Stephen]... But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse. When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!� Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!� Having said this, he fell asleep.� – Acts 7:54, 57-60

�Saul was in hearty agreement with putting [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.� – Acts 8:1-3

We have already agreed that the apostles were arrested a couple of times and even beaten once. That was the sum total of persecution they underwent over the course of the first dozen years or so after Jesus was executed. Meanwhile, they were living quite nicely. Besides, I believe the challenge was for you to refute the fact that Paul (Saul) prior to his conversion made no attempt whatsoever to confront and arrest any of the apostles. They were right there in Jerusalem, preaching in complete freedom, making no attempt to hide. At least not yet. But you see, this part of the argument hinges on your claim that the apostles underwent far too much severe persecution to maintain a lie about the resurrection of Jesus. Severe persecution that simply is not apparent in scripture. You seem to be running out of gas here. Or at least out of assumed facts to sustain your argument.

One beating, two arrests and one guy dead at the hands of a mob.

And in your opinion that constitutes “relative freedom� (your words). But later when Herod cracked down and killed James and arrested Peter that was when things got “rough for the apostles� (again your words) and when the real persecution began, right?

See? I told you we had already agreed on that point. The apostles moved about freely and continued to preach for several years after Jesus was executed. They were neither under official arrest or house arrest. So relative freedom is a very suitable term, yes. It began to become something of a problem for them around 44 AD. But the solution was easy. The apostles got out of town.

So let me get this straight. The early beatings, imprisonments, and death of Stephen from the Jews and the great persecution under Saul who dragged people from their homes and through them in prison was a relative cake walk for the apostles. But a few years later when Herod turned up the heat, had James killed, and Peter imprisoned that was when things were really rough for the apostles, right?

Do you notice how the report of a single beating has immediately become "beatings" now? Peter was imprisoned at the point where Herod began to "vex" the church, i.e. 44 AD. This is where the apostles, all but Peter, disappear from the story.

Aside from being hilariously inconsistent it is also a blatantly self serving double standard you’ve put together there. Nicely done.

I've said it repeatedly. One beating, two arrests (they were freed both times) and a disciple stoned to death by a mob. This is your definition of inconsistency? But thank you. I am pretty well satisfied with what I wrote myself.

Well hey, if now you are going to argue for the possible inaccuracy of Luke or Paul’s inability to properly recall the events in the right order then your whole argument falls apart, not that you had one in the first place. What makes us think either Luke or Paul got the three days without water part right if they couldn’t get right a simple thing like the chronology of whether Paul was without water before or after the experience on the road?

Are you questioning the accuracy of The Word of God? Because I am not the believer here. You are. And since I am not the believer here who accepts the NT as the Word of the Living God, I have no problem in pointing out that Paul's version of events may have been just a wee bit skewed by the fact that he was SICK, BLIND AND ESSENTIALLY INCAPACITATED at the time the events in question were supposed to have occurred.

Thank you for conceding you’ll have to make ad hoc assumptions about Paul’s companions.

Now you're just making stuff up. I made NO assumptions about them whatsoever. You are the one claiming to know exactly what they heard and what they saw. Except, as I pointed out, they made no such claims at all themselves. The claims originated from Paul, who happened to be SICK BLIND AND ESSENTIALLY INCAPACITATED at the time the events in question were supposed to have occurred. At least according to him much later by way of the recounting of the story in Acts.

You don’t seem to be able to refute the point that “three days� didn’t necessarily mean 72hrs in the ANE understanding.

Acts says three days, and you seem to be denying that what the Word of God says is necessarily accurate. For shame, questioning God like that!

The point that Eusebius or Clement, or other early church fathers, believed the mythology of Hercules has yet to be established. I couldn’t find in your links where this was established either. If you had read a little further to page 671 of the first link you provided you would've seen how it is all brought into context and actually argues against your position.

The original point was that mythology, such as the various stories of Hercules and the race of cyclops, was widely accepted as genuine valid history 2,000 years ago. Stories of the miracles of Jesus fit right in because ancient peoples experienced what they believed to be examples of the supernatural all around them every day. But you see, we are in the 21st century now, and we have mostly managed to grow up some during that time. Mostly.