Was Jesus unsuccessful?

[marco]

No sooner had the star announced the birth of Christ than a multitude of infants were murdered. Surely an early sign of failure? Though it must have been planned in heaven there was no advance booking made for pregnant Mary. Jesus, on this important assignment, simply vegetated fro thirty years before wandering out to do his job. Was a 20-year old Christ incapable of spreading more good news? His immediate family, the direct recipients surely of his divine message, didn't recognise him.

He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 38 by Mithrae]

I am aware these translations. I pointed out, in my earlier post:

" I quoted from KJV. If 'will' is used instead of shall, the meaning is altered."

I was dealing with the wording of the statement I had quoted.

Fair enough. I thought the discussion was about whether or not Jesus/Luke intended division. Was your point is merely that some 17th century English translators relying on a much later manuscript family thought Jesus/Luke intended division?

[marco]

When backslidden Jews began to return to the faith, the Jewish leaders feared that Rome might kill all the Jews, so they had Jesus killed to save all the Jews. This is very clearly recorded in John 11:45-55.
Here is the problem: Jesus' death brought an untimely end to his stated mission, and that might well be why the Jews are still backslidden to this day.
So yes, Jesus failed in his stated mission because he was a threat to Rome, and therefore indirectly a threat to all the Judean Jews.

Hello Provoker. That's another avenue of pursuit. I don't think many see that Jesus failed because of his untimely death. The text you mention, from John, has this:

"Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. What are we accomplishing? they asked. Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.

This is artificial direct speech. It is almost childish in concept. How was such recorded? Livy and Tacitus employ the same tactic: authenticity through apparent direct quotation. I think this discredits John rather than adds to the picture of Christ's failure.

[marco]

[Replying to post 38 by Mithrae]

I am aware these translations. I pointed out, in my earlier post:

" I quoted from KJV. If 'will' is used instead of shall, the meaning is altered."

I was dealing with the wording of the statement I had quoted.

Fair enough. I thought the discussion was about whether or not Jesus/Luke intended division. Was your point is merely that some 17th century English translators relying on a much later manuscript family thought Jesus/Luke intended division?

We are servants to our translators, to a great extent. James astutely gathered the best to make the Authorised translations. I introduced the grammatical note only because I was given some instruction about the dual meaning of "shall." As a matter of fact I was more concerned with the mention of division by Christ rather than his prediction or intent.

[Mithrae]

We are servants to our translators, to a great extent. James astutely gathered the best to make the Authorised translations.

And yet the best available in 1611 is not the best that has been available for well over a century now. Were you aware of that when you elected to quote the 17th century translation and emphasize its specific choice of wording? And if so, why choose that version?

I introduced the grammatical note only because I was given some instruction about the dual meaning of "shall." As a matter of fact I was more concerned with the mention of division by Christ rather than his prediction or intent.

Jesus' intention is a point which had been belaboured across three consecutive posts (more if we went back to your initial comments about what he 'advocated'), with you insisting of this verse that you "didn't misinterpret" and had "extract[ed] the only interpretation."

There's a fairly significant difference between saying "Jesus accurately predicted that there would be much division among humans because of his message" and "Jesus intended that there would be much division..." The former obviously supports the position For_The_Kingdom has been arguing, while the latter is what you originally implied in your reference to Luke 12 and in your emphasis on the KJV's wording. Unfortunately it seems that the former is closer to Luke's actual meaning*, as I pointed out, after which you started suggesting that your emphasis on the KJV and latter interpretation were merely incidental.

Doesn't really bother me either way, in the end It just caught my eye because experience has inclined me towards wariness of anyone belabouring some precise nuance of a single word or phrase (especially in an English translation; even a good English translation!). Granted that's more commonly an Evangelical trait, but still...



* It's worth noting that in the comparable passage in Matthew 10:34ff, 'Jesus' clearly expresses intention by saying that he "came to bring a sword" and "came to set a man against his father" etc - quite different from Luke's merely predictive approach. So assuming both derived from an earlier Q source, from these divergent renderings it's hard to say what Jesus himself might have actually said. Personally I would guess that Luke's is more reliable in light of my view that 'Matthew' wrote around 70-73CE, heavily influenced by the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple (reflected for example in the expectations of Mt 10:23 just a few verses earlier).

[For_The_Kingdom]

Let me repeat. "Shall" has one meaning when it is attached to "we" and another meaning when attached to "they". "We shall" and "they shall" demonstrate what you offered as an explanation of two different meanings of "shall". Now when someone, using correct grammar, says: "Fathers shall oppose sons" there is only ONE meaning. It is not open to interpretation, as you wrongly suppose, unless the writer has been careless in the usage.

Fathers shall oppose sons: is a statement of intent, command, firm assertion
We shall oppose sons is a statement about what will happen in the future.

(We can also use the word "will". Fathers will oppose would be a statement of future happenings, not an assertion of intent or command.)

I don't extract one of two interpretations; I extract the only interpretation. You misunderstood the explanation given and took the wrong meaning since you wrongly supposed that "shall" can arbitrarily have either of its two meanings, regardless of the person of the verb.

vs 51 got me. I stand corrected.

And who do you think Jesus said he was? God?

Jesus said it (John 8:48-59). Thomas said it (John 20:28). They acknowledged it (Matt 14:33). And Jesus lived it (2Corin 5:21). Yup.

Or, like us all, as he demonstrated in the Our Father, just one of God's metaphorical children?

Um, no. The first one.

If the world and its uncle entertained your fixed view as a truth, my question would be incomprehensible. Amazingly, some people differ from your view, saving the OP from silliness. A good strategy might have been to illustrate how Christ was invariably successful. You avoided doing this, claiming instead that gods don't make mistakes for if they do, maybe they're not gods at all. And that is the point of the OP.

And as I stated, if you don't believe in Judeo-Christianity...you know, the idea that God sent his Son to die on the cross for mankind..that kind of thing. If you don't believe this, then questions of success/failure becomes irrelevant.

I think we've exhausted this line of enquiry. Go well.

You've already admitted that Christ was successful in, you know, dying on the cross for the sins of mankind (according to the narrative). That is the focal point of Christianity...and that was definitely a success. Anything else after that is irrelevant unless you can point out some clear checklist of what Christ intended to do, and was somehow unable to do...which you can't.

So yeah, this thread is completely irrelevant unless you want to make these "fake points", points of which are useless in the face of actual Christian theology.

Go well.

[marco]

Were you aware of that when you elected to quote the 17th century translation and emphasize its specific choice of wording? And if so, why choose that version?

I invariably quote from the KJV. I did not introduce the footnote on the meaning of "shall", but I presented the grammatical consideration for fullness and clarity. Had I used another version MY point would still stay the same.

with you insisting of this verse that you "didn't misinterpret" and had "extract[ed] the only interpretation."

I am being grammatically correct in saying this. The version we are using involves "shall" and this has one interpretation, grammatically. Had I used another meaning I would have technically erred.

Doesn't really bother me either way, in the end It just caught my eye because experience has inclined me towards wariness of anyone belabouring some precise nuance of a single word or phrase ...

Yes, it usually irritates me too, if that's what you mean. As I have said several times now, I entered the grammatical area to show I was fully aware of the meaning of "shall" and to show its correct usage. That is all. Jesus had nothing, grammatically, to do with it.

Personally I would guess that Luke's is more reliable

There's no shame in guessing. We all do it. I am guessing what your thoughts are on the OP.

[marco]

And who do you think Jesus said he was? God?

Jesus said it (John 8:48-59). Thomas said it (John 20:28). They acknowledged it (Matt 14:33). And Jesus lived it (2Corin 5:21). Yup.

He may have lived like a God but that doesn't make him one. There has been much discussion elsewhere on whether Christ claimed he was God. I don't believe he ever did.

If you don't believe this, then questions of success/failure becomes irrelevant.

No they don't. People can be successful without being God. He may have been a very successful preacher. His element of failure may be only in the area where we think he was God. The OP is perfectly sensible. My warm regards to you for persevering.

[Mithrae]

There's no shame in guessing. We all do it. I am guessing what your thoughts are on the OP.

You clarified in post #4 that in your OP you weren't talking about whether or not Jesus helped make people better people, but were "referring specifically to the idea he was sent on a mission to impart some intelligence to mankind."

The messages of Jesus have been both available to and known by more people than anyone else in history. I suppose some would say that for a homeless 1st century peasant that constitutes some measure of success.

[marco]

The messages of Jesus have been both available to and known by more people than anyone else in history. I suppose some would say that for a homeless 1st century peasant that constitutes some measure of success.

Yes, if you reduce him to a wandering minstrel and compare him with others then success is written in his unpublished writings and reported songs. His big rival is Muhammad who will probably push well ahead in a few decades, by birth rate if nothing else.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The story of the resurrection of Jesus affected Paul in the same way that it affected you. Both you and Paul have chosen to believe in an apparently unrealistic story even though neither of you we a witness to what is claimed.

The story is only unrealistic if God doesn't exist. If God exists, it becomes more realistic because if God exists and he chooses to raise someone from the dead, then he can raise someone from the dead.

The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and the only way the hypothesis can be unrealistic is if God doesn't exist.

Second, if we shouldn't believe in the Resurrection because it is unrealistic and we weren't there to witness it...then I guess macroevolution and abiogensis is also thrown out of the window. But does that stop the naturalist?? Nope.

The story in Acts specifically indicates that Paul was severely dehydrated.

Severe dehydration brings with it, among other things, reduced eyesight and hallucinations. After he recovered Paul was convinced that he had spoken to Jesus.

Bruh, you got the story completely backwards. Wow, there is no wonder why there are so many false/bad interpretations. It says it right there in the scriptures, clear as day...that Paul had his experience FIRST (Acts 9:3-6), and then he was three days without sight and neither ate or drank (vs 9).

Yet you are on here claiming it was his dehydration that lead to his "hallucination". SMH. Can't even get the narrative right, yet you are so ready to put forth the theory that supposedly comes from the narrative? LOL.

But Jesus had been DEAD for several years. Since there is no REALISTIC chance that Paul actually spoke with a dead man

If you speak to a "dead" man, wouldn't that make the "dead" man alive?

, and given his physical condition and the fact that he was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, the conclusion that he, Paul, hallucinated a vision of Jesus is simply obvious.

A bad premise can only lead to a bad conclusion.

No actual supernatural events have ever been unambiguously recognized to have occurred.

I disagree....wholeheartedly. I also wholeheartedly...disagree. LOL.

Which means that natural explanations are vastly preferable to supernatural ones.

We've exhausted all possible natural explanations to explain the origin of the disciples beliefs...and once all natural explanations have been exhausted, there is only one game left in town (supernatural).

Because natural explanations can be shown to be vastly more likely. That you don't accept the obvious natural explanation and prefer the supernatural one is a product of your specific religious indoctrination.

The origin of the universe <---it is impossible for there to be a natural explanation for this, so right from jump street does the supernatural explanation rear its ugly head.

You certainly would not so readily accept unrealistic claims presented by believers of a non Christian religion.

Show me the evidence. I am open.

What the apostles actually believed is known only to those apostles that claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. And they are no longer talking.

So, I guess the entire genre of history is thrown out of the window on that note.

We are necessarily only talking about a handful of people.

Paul stated that there were more than a handful of people...and even if it was only a handful..its amazing how you can go from a handful of believers to #1 in the entire world.

That others who were not claiming to be witness to the risen Jesus came to truly believe the stories, is reflected in the fact that YOU were not a witness to the risen Jesus, but you have become convinced that the claims are true.

Bro, that is what history is all about. Historians who are living today were not present during any of the events in antiquity, yet, the genre of history is well, an established genre/tool/methodology we use for truth value.

Unless, again, you want to throw the entire genre of history out of the window. Or is this a double standard?

Much in the same way that Muslims have been convinced that Muhammad's claims are true, of Mormons are convinced that Joseph Smith's claims are true. And yet those of us that are outside of those belief systems looking in see only unrealistic foolishness. Because people invariably give their own belief systems a free pass from any in depth skepticism.

Case by case.

Christians proclaim, and believe, that the empty tomb is evidence that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and flew away. And yet that is among the least likely possibilities.

Actually it isn't. The only way you can determine it is the least likely possibility is if you are able to determine God's level of desire to raise Jesus from the dead. But you can't do that, can you? Nope.

In fact it has no "likelihood" of being true at all.

Based on what?

The empty tomb is in fact easily explained with no supernatural element necessary. But Let's wait for our head to head to deal with that.

Our head to head is supposed to be on the possibility of infinity, remember? In my last pm to you, I made that very point. No wonder I've yet to receive a response.

The secular historical record is also entirely bereft of any supernatural claims which are considered to be uniformly accepted historical fact.

So, "because the claims are of supernatural nature, the claims cannot be historical".

That is a text book non sequitur example.

That Muhammad began the religion of Islam is a historically accepted fact. That Muhammad was commanded to put to memory information given to him by the angel Gabriel, information which would later be written done and become known as the Quran, is a religious belief. It is not an accepted historical fact. Except, of course, by Muslims. Exactly the same way that Christians consider the details of their religious beliefs to be historical fact.

If it happened in history, then it is historical. One cannot dismiss supernatural claims as unhistorical based primarily on the fact that the claims are supernatural...for the simple fact that even if there was no evidence of a supernatural event, it still does not follow that therefore, there was no supernatural event.

Again, text book example of a non sequitur.

It is not only possible but probable that our current understanding of history is wrong to some degree. It's difficult enough to know what actually occurred without having to factor in claims of magic.

Then apply that line of reasoning to the concept of abiogenesis.

The resurrection of Jesus is a well known historical CLAIM. It is NOT a well known historical fact. It is a religious belief. The idea that the resurrection is as well established historical fact the equal of any other historical fact is immediately refuted by the observation that no other supernatural claims are considered to be valid history.

The idea isn't that "just because they claimed it, it is true". The argument is rather that "they believed it, and the origin of the belief is best explained based upon the truth value of their claims".

That is a big distinction. In other words, we are appealing to the best explanation to explain the effect, which we believe to be the Resurrection.

Now, of course, there are religious folks out there who believe all sorts of things, which is why I keep stressing the case by case approach, because all beliefs aren't created equal.

As I said, I can explain the empty tomb easily enough.

Then...explain it.

If you are going to propose the sudden rise to prominence of James the brother of Jesus to a position of authority in the new church is unexplainable without his being a witness to the resurrect Jesus

Yeah, but James probably wouldn't have had any position in the Church if it weren't for being convinced by the resurrection.

, you are going to first have to explain what took him so long.

What took MLK so long to propose a march on Washington? Who knows.

In fact you need to explain why non of the other three brothers and unknown number of sisters seem to be particularly impressed with him. They grew up with him after all. If he was really so obviously special his family should have been his earliest supporters.

Hey, you can't please everyone.

But in fact his family members are largely missing from the story.

They aren't missing, they aren't explicitly mentioned on every single page as you seem to think they should be.

And what of the neighbors, individuals who actually knew the young Jesus growing up?

They are also mentioned from time to time. Jesus was also on the road a lot..and usually when someone goes on tour, they don't take their whole neighborhood with them.

Mark 6:
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

They were not impressed. And neither, apparently was his brother James. At least not until his brother was unfairly and cruelly crucified on what seem to be the flimsiest of charges.

Again, you can't please everyone. Some people are gonna hate on you no matter what you do. And to point out the fact that some people weren't impress with Jesus is irrelevant, because I can just as easily point out the fact that there were those that WERE impressed with him.

When Jesus made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (on donkey), he was greeted by large crowds who WERE impressed with him.

So the moral of the story is, you are gonna have your fans, and you are gonna have your haters.

Deut.21
[23] His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Hanging was the most degrading of all possible deaths to a Jews. Jesus' death by crucifixion would have been considered a great family dishonor, as well as unfair and unwarranted. James the brother of Jesus and the other apostles sought to clear the name of Jesus in the only real manner available to them.

So you clear his name by saying that he Resurrected from the dead?? LOL. Still doesn't explain the empty tomb...and you talk about disgrace...the tomb was found by women..and the testimony of women just wasn't credible in Judaism. So if the male followers of Jesus did concoct a story, they wouldn't have had women discover the empty tomb first.

Plus, given the fact that the narratives (Gospels) had the apostles looking like naive fools most of the time and even cowards..it is unlikely that they would put themselves in such a bad light..if the story was originated from them and was fabricated by them.

By making the case that Jesus had been sent by God, as the claim of his resurrection would surely establish. [/quote]

But you see, we are still left with two undeniable facts. Who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus? His followers and ONLY his followers. Who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus fly off up into the sky? His followers and ONLY his followers.

James and Paul weren't his followers.

And of course both of these claims violate all common sense and common experience.

"The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

If you want to talk about what is far fetched, and use it was a defence for your claims, you should first consider that your core belief is that a corpse came back to life and flew away. Which in and of itself makes it appear that your concept of "far fetched" is already completely distorted.

Right, and if God exists and he has the power to give life, take life, and restore life again...I don't see the issue here. Again, the hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead. It was a miracle. Now, if the claim was that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, then I could see your point. However, that isn't the argument.

That being said, again; I find it amazing that people who think that "dead" matter can/did come to life have such a beef with a corpse coming back to life...and what is even more amazing is the fact that the "dead" matter coming to life is the actual naturalistic claim!!!

They believe that "dead" matter "naturally" came to life...when there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it will fall right in the category of the "common sense and common experience" that you claim the Resurrection violates!!

It blows my mind.

But yes, I am suggesting that the apostles and a few other disciples were responsible for spreading the false rumor that they had seen the risen Jesus. A rumor they knew to be false.

Which still doesn't explain the empty tomb. If they lied, then Jesus' corpse should have still be in the tomb. But it wasn't. And not only that, but what you are suggesting is that the apostles and a few other disciples lied about seeing the Resurrected Jesus, and Paul just happened to hallucinate about seeing the Resurrected Jesus...which is to suggest that if the apostles wouldn't have spread the false rumors, that Paul would have still hallucinated and been all by his lonesome in believing that Jesus rose from the dead.

But then again, if no rumors were spread and Paul hallucinated and therefore was lead to believe in the Resurrected Jesus, then Jesus' followers could have just pointed to his corpse in the tomb and said "Buddy, get some rest,..Jesus' body is right here"...and Christianity would have ceased before it began.

But it didn't quite work out that way, did it?

But for each new convert, they had an individual like you and Paul; an individual who was not knowingly spreading a false false rumor, but telling a story they believed in with all certainty. Just like you.

Sure, assuming that the story was false.

Every religion is founded on some measure of supernatural assumptions. THis is what separates religions from simple philosophies. As with every other religion, your supernatural assumptions are founded on no actual physical evidence, but entirely on the unquestioned and unverifiable belief that your claims are valid. This is make believe in action. It's the same sort of make believe that every religion is founded on. Unless you are prepared to make the claim that all religions are founded on some measure of actual truth, then it is clear that the majority of people right around the world are completely and utterly fulla-bulla. (Mods: Fulla-bulla was a sour grape Slurpee drink that I used to be fond of back in the seventies.)

Genetic fallacy. How a religion is founded is independent of the truth value of the religion.

Or maybe it's more accurate to say that humans have a difficult time recognizing and understanding the truth.

Some do, some don't. Still generalizing, eh?

Because the truth is always subject to the perspective of the individual who is doing the observing. That is why modern science works within a system of repeated experimentation and observation.

And?

This is known as the empirical method for attempting to ascertain the truth. And it is a system which has led to our modern working technological society. What does the evidence show repeatedly and without fail? Among other things, it shows that a fully dead corpse will not come back to life and fly away.

It also shows and/or rather doesn't support the idea that inanimate matter can suddenly/gradually come to life..but again, that doesn't stop naturalists from believing it.

Oh and just for the record, in case you haven't noticed: that is one of my "go to" retorts. Whenever a skeptic starts talking about how "dead corpses don't come back to life", my rebuttal will always be "Well, dead matter doesn't come to life either."

Naturalists don't believe that a dead body can come back to life, but they sure as hell will believe that dead matter can become living. It is a text book example of the taxi cab fallacy. A double standard.

And another thing, it is now becoming a straw man. We (believers) agree with you that dead corpses stay dead, according to the laws of nature. However, no one is saying that the Resurrection was a natural event...the hypothesis is supernatural...therefore, you continually pointing out what naturally occurs when someone dies is rather pointless.

We are on a completely different realm of reality (supernatural)...and I know that might not be your thing, but nevertheless, it is what it is. So from now on when you make that point...I will simply say...straw man.

A simple claim to the contrary cannot overcome all common observation. People lie!

Ok, and I am saying people tell the truth, and your simple claim to the contrary (people lie) also cannot overcome all common observation. See what I did there? You have to do more than just say "they could have been lying" because for all you know, they could have very well been telling the truth.

You have to demonstrate how does the likelihood of them lying outweigh the likelihood of them telling the truth...and I don't think you can do that. But I can, on the flip-side tho.

Sometimes people lie with good motivation. Often they lie because it is easy, or because it works to achieve a goal.

Some people tell the truth with good motivation (one would be; because they dont like lying). Often they tell the truth because it is the moral thing to do, and it works to achieve a goal of being trustworthy.

See what I did that. The contrary.

What was the goal of the disciples of Jesus in lying about his resurrection? Restoring his mystique and good name. And I would say that it worked far better than they could have ever imagined that it would.

I would guess so, too. If they were lying.

That is because you have chosen to be gullible.

I don't think I am. I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (actually 100%) that God exists. The only question is, which/what God exists? And based on the evidence that has been presented, I draw the conclusion that the Christian God exist.

That isn't gullibility...that is research and critical thinking.

The disciples claimed that Jesus came back to life and flew away.

Some scientist believe that dead matter came to life and began to talk.

The obvious conclusion is that this is a lie.

The obvious conclusion is that abiogenesis is a lie.

Belief in such a story requires a level of gullibility, self deception and lack of skepticism that many people, myself included, are simply not capable of.

And believing that a process which can't think (nature), but yet is still somehow able to give you a fully functional brain with a complimentary package of consciousness is something that I am not capable of accepting.

And also, a process which can't see (nature), but yet is still somehow able to give you eyeballs with a complimentary package of vision is something else that I am not capable of accepting.

If if I wasn't a Christian, I STILL wouldn't believe that stuff.

If I am suggesting that you are gullible to a foolish degree, and I am, I am also suggesting that the vast majority of people around the world are also gullible to a foolish degree. Because the various unrealistic and outlandish beliefs that exist around the world is staggering.

Right, and some of the unrealistic and outlandish beliefs that exist around the world comes right from those who don't "believe".

Genetics are not involved.

LOL. SMH.

People have motives for making claims.

People have motives for making truth claims too.

All claims must be subjected to reason and evidence before even being considered potentially true. Because people commonly lie, or are just plain deceived. How does one "prove" a claim is valid or not? By comparing it to all common experience. The claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away fails miserably when compared to all common experience. And what is the evidence for the truth of the claim in this case? Somebody said so!

And believing that dead matter came to life and began to talk, that also fails miserably when compared to common experience...and what is the evidence for the truth of the claim in that case? "A scientist said so"!

Paul states this in 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians was written about a quarter of a century after Jesus was supposed to have been executed, and represents the first ever mention, historically, of the risen Jesus.

Yeah, but Paul was talking about events that happened a few years after the Resurrection tho. And sure, it may have been written about a quarter of a century after Jesus' death...but then again, pointing that out is irrelevant because most written history (which is what he is claiming it was) is written after the events of the subject matter.

This is in fact the only source for this claim of the five hundred.

So what?

And Paul got his calling years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and was not a personal witness to any of the claimed post crucifixion appearances of Jesus.

He may not have been a personal witness to the post crucifixion of Jesus, but he was a contemporary to the original apostles, one being Peter, who was Jesus' right hand man...and he stated from his own testimony that he spent time with Peter personally (Gal 1:18-24).

And who better than Peter would you want to talk to about Jesus?? (except maybe John).

And not only that but, Paul was a contemporary to Jesus. He may have never met him, but he was still a contemporary nevertheless.

Second, in verse 8 (1Corin 15), Paul stated that Christ appeared to him...now, whether or not he is talking about the road to Damascus incident or another appearance is up for debate.

1 Corinthians represents a single claim made by an individual not present for the event he describes.

And this individual got his information from those who were present.

1 Corinthians does not represent five hundred eye witness testimonies.

Sure doesn't. Paul was simply passing down the creed as it was passed down to him, and what was passed down to him was the mention of the five hundred folks.

I have repeatedly conceded the historical existence of Christians. I also concede the historical existence of Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists, as well as the one time existence of believers in thousands of other now largely extinct beliefs.

I also concede the historical existence of individuals (scientists, atheists) who once thought that the universe is finite and static...which is a belief that is now largely extinct (for the most part).

This would only be true if humans were reliable. But as we all know too well, they are not.

Some are, some aren't. No generalizing.

Is it conceivable that the apostles might have lied?

Sure, it is conceivable...but that isn't the best explanation to explain other facts..such as the empty tomb, and the origin of Paul and James' beliefs.

In general we actually know very little about the apostles. The only apostle we know very much about at all is Peter. Is Peter the sort of man who would lie?

Matthew 28:
[69] Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
[70] But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
[71] And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
[72] And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
[73] And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
[74] Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

PETER IS IN FACT ONE OF THE MOST INFAMOUS LIARS IN WESTERN LITERATURE. So we begin with a basis for supposing that Peter would certainly lie if he felt the circumstance warranted it.

Sooo, let me get this straight; Peter would lie about merely knowing Jesus...but would also be the front-man in concocting a story about the physical Resurrection from death of the man of whom he just claimed he didn't know??

Makes no sense.

You truly believe that a corpse came back and flew away.

And for those who don't believe in intelligent design (non-theists), they truly believe that dead matter came to life and began to talk.

There must be a reason why you believe it.

There must be a reason why they believe it (abiogenesis).

For the overwhelming majority of people around the world, the reason they subscribe to their particular belief system is because mommy and daddy said so. And that's just a fact.

Genetic fallacy. Oh, and btw, the genetic fallacy has nothing to do with genetics. Look it up and you will find that most unbelievers commit this fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning and I will call it out whenever I see it, which is most of the time on this great forum.

I suppose it is fair to say that convincing evidence is represented by whatever serves to convince someone that a thing is true.

Well, you certainly seem to have "convincing" evidence which leads you to believe the contrary. So are you going to apply that same line of reasoning to yourself? Or does it not work with your reasoning, only the reasoning of others who don't believe as you do?

But you see, we also have that darned gullibility factor to consider. Because what other people do in very similar circumstances has a direct bearing on what can be observed as being part of the common human condition.

?

Notice how religions tend to be concentrated into distinct areas. This is because most people end up subscribing to whatever religion they were indoctrinated into.

Genetic fallacy. Even if what you say is true, that has no barren on whether or not the indoctrinated belief is true or not. That is why any attempts to discredit a belief based on the beliefs origins is fallacious.

Matter is not dead exactly. At least not in the sense that it is completely inert. Even a rock has internal movement at the atomic level. Because matter interacts with itself.

So, there is no difference between you, and a rock?

Even dead animal or plant tissue undergoes decay.

Keyword: Dead.

Matter is constantly changing, because matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and energy can neither be created or destroyed.

The second law of thermodynamics comes into play only after the universe began to exist...which by all contemporary accounts, it did.

All it does is change form. Continuously.

Yeah but it couldn't have been changing forms since past eternity. Such a concept is logically incoherent and cannot happen under any conceivable circumstance...so much so that even God himself is subjected to this absurdity...and if he is subjected to it, then so is nature.

The problem is that most people do not understand modern concepts of biology and physics.

Well, I understand enough of it to be able to argue my position.

If they did they would not so casually dismiss the idea that non sentient matter could, over time, in certain cases evolve the ability to respire and excrete, and reproduce, and eventually even become self aware.

See, now you are speculating, relying on the unseen. You say above that most people don't understand modern concepts of biology and physics...yet, there is nothing about biology and/or physics that will "allow you to believe that non sentient matter could, over time, in certain cases evolve the ability to respire and excrete, and reproduce, and eventually even become self aware".

There is nothing about science that allows you believe this. You haven't conducted any experiment, test...gathered any data, or done any research that will get you to conclusively draw such a conclusion. You are simply relying on faith.

Sure, you are free to believe that it could happen, but mere belief is not going to get the unconscious matter to become conscious. Go in the lab, conduct the experiments, and get the desired results. Until then, you are assuming, speculating, and faith-utilizing.

Because it is hard to successfully argue against one's own existence.

It is hard to argue against ones own existence, but where one came from and how one got here....that is a different story.

A case can be made that Shakespeare did not exist, but was a pseudonym used by Sir Francis Bacon, who in fact was responsible for writing the plays attributed to Shakespeare. A case for that very thing has been made, in fact. But it is a long way from having been proven true.

Well, if the case for Shakespeare's existence outweighs the case against Shakesepeare's existence, then for will prevail over against. Isn't that how it works??

But nevertheless, a case can be made either way.

Most of what we know of the state of Christianity in the 50's is taken from the letters of Paul. There is no mention at all of Jesus' birth, virgin or otherwise, John the baptist, or the empty tomb in Paul's letters.

Yeah, because Paul's agenda wasn't to give a biography of Jesus' life, which is why you won't find any biograph-full themes in his letters.

Features of the story which had developed ultimate importance by the time the Gospels were written.

In what? About a decade later? LOL.

The legend of Jesus grew and took shape over the course of years.

Any specifics?