Did Paul witness the resurrection ?

[DanieltheDragon]

In fact one comment i made earlier... The resurrection is something Paul witnessed, and this is why Paul converted to Christianity. So here is evidence that needs explaining. If the resurrection didn't happen then why did Paul convert?

This was posited in another thread that has gone in a variety of different direction, but I find this interesting enough to focus in and look at.

Questions for debate:

Did Paul witness the resurrection?

What constitutes being a witness to the resurrection?



Here is Paul's account as told by Luke:

Acts 9:1-9

9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lords disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?

5 Who are you, Lord? Saul asked.

I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied. 6 Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

[OnceConvinced]

Is it a problem to be a "vision"?

Well yeah. A vision could have been conjured up by his subconscious imagination.

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 29 by Zzyzx]

Apologists seem inclined to jump back and forth to claim that Bible tales should be taken literally vs. taken figuratively or metaphorically " whatever suits their argument. No one seems to be able to identify a means by which literal can be identified from non-literal (other than opinion).

Actually in real life we use a combination of all these things to convey abstract thoughts.. Like when Jesus said "i am the light" that is obviously figurative. But when Christ was Crucified we accept that as a literal event... The objective would be to make sense of how someone communicates instead of making nonsense out of it, even if they use both figurative and literal talk.

"My cell phone bill is very expensive, its costing me an arm and a leg".. You don't say "it cost him an arm and a leg, but why does he still have two legs?" because you make sense out of those words opposed to making nonsense out of them... I wish i could say the same for scripture.

Christian scholars and theologians do not claim to know with certainty what Paul/Saul wrote. They debate even which of his supposed letters were actually from him and which were written by others claiming to be him.

Ya if we take it as a lie... Even still this is a genetic fallacy or "fallacy of origin" to say that has any effect on the content itself. We look to what the message in itself is opposed to who wrote it.

I am open to that idea " provided that credible, verifiable, independent evidence is presented that his long-dead body came back to life " in direct contrast with what is known of the real world in which such things do not happen.

So in other words, you aren't open to it. You aren't open to the information we already have....

[enviousintheeverafter]

Did Paul witness the resurrection?

Well, for someone to witness something he would have had to observe it taking place. Which would mean physical proximity. Not a vision.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 32 by DefenderofTruth]

I would suggest that every single atheist here is as open to evidence regarding Christianity as you are to evidence regarding Islam or Mormonism.

[Zzyzx]

.

Apologists seem inclined to jump back and forth to claim that Bible tales should be taken literally vs. taken figuratively or metaphorically " whatever suits their argument. No one seems to be able to identify a means by which literal can be identified from non-literal (other than opinion).

Actually in real life we use a combination of all these things to convey abstract thoughts.. Like when Jesus said "i am the light" that is obviously figurative. But when Christ was Crucified we accept that as a literal event...

Why accept tales about crucifixion and resurrection as depicting literal events?

The objective would be to make sense of how someone communicates instead of making nonsense out of it, even if they use both figurative and literal talk.

By what means can a distinction be made with certainty between literal and figurative when accounts are written in an unfamiliar language, based in an unfamiliar culture, by unidentifiable people who lived two thousand years ago?

"My cell phone bill is very expensive, its costing me an arm and a leg".. You don't say "it cost him an arm and a leg, but why does he still have two legs?" because you make sense out of those words opposed to making nonsense out of them... I wish i could say the same for scripture.

Perhaps we are aware that "arm and a leg" is a common idiom in present culture. Would that necessarily be apparent to someone from a different culture, different time, different language?

Christian scholars and theologians do not claim to know with certainty what Paul/Saul wrote. They debate even which of his supposed letters were actually from him and which were written by others claiming to be him.

Ya if we take it as a lie...

As explained earlier there are alternatives to "take it as a lie" while still not accepting the tale as true and accurate.

Even still this is a genetic fallacy or "fallacy of origin" to say that has any effect on the content itself. We look to what the message in itself is opposed to who wrote it.

Origin alone cannot be relied upon to prove anything true or false. Okay?

Now, is there any evidence that the "vision" tale is true (regardless who wrote it)?

I am open to that idea " provided that credible, verifiable, independent evidence is presented that his long-dead body came back to life " in direct contrast with what is known of the real world in which such things do not happen.

So in other words, you aren't open to it.

Correction: I clearly said that I am open to the idea if given credible, verifiable, independent evidence.

Are you saying that no such evidence exists? If so, that is the problem of the person making the claim " not my being closed to the possibility.

Are you willing to accept as truthful and accurate claims that other gods came back to life if those claims are also supported by unverifiable stories, testimonials, conjectures, opinions? If not, why are the Bible God tales accepted and the others rejected?

You aren't open to the information we already have....

Okay. Lay out the "credible, verifiable, independent evidence that a long-dead body came back to life."

Kindly don't consume band width citing unverifiable tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, religious beliefs " none of which are "credible, verifiable, independent evidence."

[Haven]

So did Joseph Smith witness the resurrection? He had a very similar vision of the resurrected Jesus as Paul, so, by Defender's standards, Joseph Smith witnessed the resurrection of Jesus. Defender, are you willing to convert to the LDS faith because of Smith's witnessing the resurrection?

By any reasonable standard, witnessed means actually watching an event take place in real time, not seeing some vision (that, curiously enough, no one else can see) years after the alleged event happened. Unless Paul (or Joseph) actually saw Jesus' dead body come back to life, he didn't witness the resurrection. Instead, he saw a vision that was in all likelihood simply a hallucination.

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 32 by DefenderofTruth]

I would suggest that every single atheist here is as open to evidence regarding Christianity as you are to evidence regarding Islam or Mormonism.

I don't know who you guys think you are kidding, these are just fancy ways to say "no"..

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 37 by DefenderofTruth]

Are you admitting that you are not open to considering the evidence for Mormonism or Islam?

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 37 by DefenderofTruth]

Are you admitting that you are not open to considering the evidence for Mormonism or Islam?

I am not admitting that. Actually i have already spoke on this topic elsewhere. But this is just another case where you are speaking in place of Christians. You are telling me what i believe instead of me saying what i believe. And like i said, these are just fancy ways to say "no, I'm not open to the idea of God"... Asking for "evidence" you don't expect to find. Saying i am just as open to Islam as you to Christianity... These are just mechanisms you use to justify your close mindedness to the idea of God.


Follow link and refer to post 3 to find my thoughts on this topic.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 23&start=0

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 26 by Hamsaka]

I also appreciate your civil 'style', and that you have lots of members participating seriously in your thread(s) (or threads with OPs quoting you ) is a result of that. Theists are under a lot of pressure here, and outnumbered (understatement), but you try to respond to all posts. That is a daunting task! Just want you to know it's appreciated.

Well i appreciate what you said... Personally i think i get too emotionally involved sometimes and spend too much time debating christianity, but I'm glad to see others appreciation.

You do better than average at controlling how emotional it gets for you. It might interest you to know that these issues are just as emotional to atheists and skeptics, and we have just as much trouble keeping it cool as any theist.

Zzyzx says quite often that you see the name calling, sarcasm and personal attacks come out when the debater has run out of evidence support for their position. Around here, it's considered an admirable thing to 'concede' or drop your point if you find you can't support it. Yeah, it burns a bit but people respect that, and your personal credibility among members is increased. Credibility is important because people trust what you say more, they know you have something to back up what you say whether you lay it all out or not.

First, this is a profoundly important idea, it is fundamental to the Christian religion, and such important things shouldn't be trifled with.

Personally i think the most fundamental idea to Christianity is the crucifixion. I think people started to realize that Christ was the prophecies Jewish Messiah at the instance of Christ's physical death. And we see evidence of this in the scripture..

Matthew 27:51 says
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split

That was the moment Christ physically died that the verse is talking about. The meaning of the verse is that in that instance the "curtain of the temple was torn in two". What that means is, in that instant Christ was revealed to the world as the lamb of God. This quote demonstrates the revelation that Christians witness up to today. We were revealed that Christ died for our sins in that instant.

I believe that the faith of Christ is of revelation in nature. Christians believe in Christ because of revelation and it was in that instance, Christ physical death, that this was revealed. And this revealing nature has been here ever sense, its why I believe.

So i personally think that the crucifixion is thee fundamental moment of Christianity, and rest at its core.

Yes, this is the core issue as I understood it back when I was a Christian too.

The core issue of a religion will be respected and accepted by other believers, but it is just illustrative to nonbelievers, it's just a central detail that binds the religion together.

Other than that, it is not evidence of how 'true' the Christian message is. It is also another one of those 'extraordinary claims', along with the miracles and visions (a true vision of a god is on the par of miraculous). The temple curtain being torn in two when Jesus died is extraordinary. How do people know this happened at the moment Jesus died? Wasn't he crucified far enough from the Temple that witnesses to his death weren't able to see the Temple curtain splitting apart? I doubt they had phones or walkie talkies or watches so that the exact moment between the two events was confirmed. The earthquake that supposedly happened at the moment Jesus died would have had a lot of witnesses, though, including people not anywhere near the crucifixion. Even I'm not immune from making some big decision and then freaking myself out that the earthquake that happened the moment I decided MEANT something. Human brains automatically 'pair' events and seek meaning in them, but we do it long past the realistic and into fantasy. Google 'pattern seeking and the brain', it's very interesting.

So to a skeptic, claims the Temple curtain was ripped in two in DEMONSTRATION that it was the Lamb of God that they'd went and crucified is just one more truth claim, but not evidence the 'core' of the Christian religion was a real, supernatural event. It sounds exactly like all the other religious myths, like Muhammed's winged horse he took to Heaven to meet Moses and Abraham (Jesus too, I think), or the Buddhist monk Shantideva that no one liked but wrote such a treatise on compassion that it caused him to float up and out of the monastery and straight to Nirvana.

When a believer says 'vision', the skeptic knows that little word means a bunch of stuff besides what the believer is telling them, so which is it?

But if we take the literal meaning of the word in the scripture, it means "vision", do we have to make it out to mean something else? Or can it be excepted as its literal meaning? as a "vision"?

The literal meaning of 'vision' isn't the problem from the skeptical POV, there's no problem accepting Paul SAW something, heck, even that he saw who he said he saw.

The problem, again, is accepting what his vision MEANT, which is that Jesus Christ literally manifested somehow or other, back from the dead, the Son of God and/or God himself made flesh. THAT is the problem. You are the one making it out to mean 'something else' -- you as a believer insist that this vision has a divine, supernatural meaning. Then we're back to wondering why it should mean something so extraordinary and earth-shattering, rather than be a simple, common vision billions of people have had of their gods? No one is accepting that the Buddha appeared to the murderer Angulimala, precipitating this evil man to become a saint. You don't believe that, or that Odin appears to the neo-Norse religious practitioners. You'd be pretty shocked if it were true! And in order to believe it were true, you'd need a helluva LOT more than some neo-Norseman wearing a leather g-string just telling you it is true to believe it

why I should accept that Paul had divinely inspired 'visions' versus one of the plethora of OTHER known causes for 'visions'.

To even ask this question, one would have to accept, as true, the content and quality of the other people's visions. Were they, too, having divinely inspired visions or were there other causes/reasons for their visions?

Those ought to be ruled out before one accepts the vision as divinely inspired, that is just normal reasoning we employ in daily life. Sure, it COULD have a supernatural explanation, but shouldn't we rule out the simple and obvious explanations before claiming 'it was supernatural'?

because they won't accept the extraordinary claims of theists until the more banal, mundane reasons are ruled out?

I think it is a reasonable explanation myself. If Christ is the Son of God than surely it is reasonable, and like i said before i think that rest on the crucifixion. It was then that the Old Testament pointed to Christ. Thats what we preach, if you read the scripture it is preached as "Christ Crucified" opposed to "Christ resurrected". They literal use the term "Christ Crucified" as the message of Christianity through out the New Testament.

Of course it is reasonable to you, because you agree that Christ is the Son of God, and you believe this God is the true God and the creator of man and the earth. Like I said above, saints from all religions have visions of their gods, it's universal, so it's not like you are buying something odd or unheard of.

Skeptics don't agree there is an invisible, undetectable supernatural 'being' as described in the bible as God. You have to accept this FIRST before any of the other stories don't sound like a Buddhist or devotee of Wakantanka wrote them.

You have to first accept the Bible God is true, and that what is written in the Bible is true to life before the crucifixion even MATTERS as a piece of evidence (much less what happened to the Temple curtain, the earthquake, the Transfiguration, the empty tomb, and so on).

That said, historians base history on "the most plausible". Thats how historians look to tell what is history, by the most plausible explanation. But a miracle, by definition, is thee most improbable, it wouldn't be a miracle if it was "the most plausible". This is why historians can't prove the resurrection. That is New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's own words. He says even if it did happen he can't prove it. It is a dilemma for the historian, but the crucifixion isn't. The crucifixion is generally excepted by historians, not all but most.

The crucifixion of a Jew known as Jesus the Christ is not 'extraordinary' or hard to accept at all. The crucifixion was something that happened to many zealots and 'rebels' back then. It was a method of executing enemies of the Roman occupation. In and of itself, it's not 'evidence' that Jesus was the Son of God, or that there IS a God.

That Jesus was resurrected . . . that's when trouble (for us) starts Crucified? Fine (what an awful way to go, Jesus sounded pretty cool for his day and age). Resurrected? Even Ehrman spreads his hands wide and shrugs. It's a matter of faith, a subjective position that accepts 'truth' without question or evidence.

So in my skeptical POV, you seem to be saying Paul's 'hallucination' changed Paul's life AND somehow changed the life of the Gentiles. Technically, I agree, the Gentile believers are everywhere you look. But did Paul's 'hallucination' cause the Gentile's to believe? The implication is that Paul's 'hallucination' had some special powers, or was a 'special kind' of hallucination. Again, whether Paul had a divinely inspired 'vision' or suffered an epileptic seizure or had psychotic episodes or ate mushrooms is not resolved, how in the world could anyone ever know?

But it isn't the vision itself that people believe by, it is the message of Christ why people believe. It is based on the message as whole, not hinged on Paul's vision alone. Christ is the Cornerstone of the Temple, we see this today. Paul said his message was of "Christ Crucified", and the revelation of "Christ Crucified" still holds truth in people today.

OK, that makes sense. They believed the message for what the message says.

Since it is impossible to jump in a time machine that moves backward in time and interview Jesus, Paul, or any direct witnesses, WHY in the world would a modern person devote their entire life to worship a Jew who claimed to be the Son of God 2000 years ago? Why would a modern person gratefully accept 'salvation' and 'commune' with this man-god by 'eating' his body and 'drinking' his blood? I mean, really??

Because of the promises. Because 'eternal life' in a glorious, perfect 'heaven' sounds a LOT better than being snuffed out as if your existence meant nothing. Because if you don't, over and over again the Bible says nonbelievers are condemned, and suffer eternal torture in Hell as punishment for not believing. Or they just 'stay dead' and miss out on eternal life. These are seriously compelling promises the Christian religion makes. Scary and hopeful. Why not 'believe' just to be on the safe side? Rather than haggle over every word's meaning in Hebrew, for instance? Even a paramecium avoids painful stimuli. In this vein, it is stupid to just REFUSE to believe.

As a believer, are there reasons I haven't mentioned why a modern person would commit their lives to a 2000 year old story about a Jew in ancient Palestine that claimed to be the Son of God?

You do realize you are telling us why Christians believe, right? Opposed to a Christian telling us why they believe. You are speaking in place of a Christian and ill tell you this just isn't true for me.

I was a Christian, and the above was why I believed (more or less), when the rubber hit the road. I agree, my 'methodology' of belief isn't universal to all Christians. It's not uncommon, though, and I know that from being surrounded by Christians my whole life, having them as friends, and having them work hard to convert me (and not just against my will LOL). So this isn't true for you -- fair enough

Like i said, my belief rest on the REVELATION of the message of Christ Crucified. It was never formed based on a promise of an after life. I hope you take that in and change your perception of why Christians believe, it has been based on revelation sense the time Christ was alive up to today. That is how it has always been, the scripture confirms this, and i see it even in my own beliefs up into today.

I will take it in, and of course different Christians will have different experiences.

When you say your belief rests upon the REVELATION of the message of Christ Crucified . . . I have no idea what that means. I never did, and perhaps that's why I made a crappy Christian . What does that even mean?

Is this something you can explain to a person who has no idea where to even begin with a statement like that?

It must be pretty clear by now that statements like this are not particularly convincing to people. It sounds like something happened inside you, but you don't explain what happened. I believe you can explain it. People manage to put all kinds of deeply subjective experiences into words (poetry being one example).

Statements like this don't show or demonstrate what you are talking about is true.

It's not an insult to you when you are told this doesn't explain why we should also believe what you do. I know what a revelation is, it's hard not to have revelations and even a few epiphanies over the course of a life .

Your challenge around here is to show you speak truth. It might sound like we're asking for a different 'kind' of truth than you are used to dealing with, but it's the same. Is there a different 'truth' for what time it is in NYC, versus God's existence? Of course not.