Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

[William]

Q: Is belief in The Resurrection based on fact or based on faith?

From a discussion in another thread;
______________________________


[Replying to Realworldjack in post #222]

Let us recall that it was you who stated,

that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith.

This is what I stated;

"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena."

I also stated;
I am not arguing that the stories themselves were or were not penned as true accounts of actual events by the very one(s) who experienced these things they claim to have experienced.
My argument is that we can only take their stories as hearsay, because we did not witness those events. What we each DO with the hearsay depends upon our faith in the stories being true, our faith that the stories being false, or in our lack of faith due to the nature of the evidence.

Are you saying, NONE of it aligns?

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Because you see, we have those who complain that much of the information is so closely the "aligned", they want to insist that there must, and had to be copying going on between the authors.

Apparently there are biblical scholars who accept that in those cases, copying may have occurred.

So then, exactly what would we expect? If they all report the same exact events, in the same exact way, I think we would have complaints that something would not be right here.

Yes - that it was unnecessary to have four exact copies of the same data.

If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right.

Yes.

However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect.

Which still wouldn't do away with the idea that the stories were concocted by the priesthood...such would be intelligent enough to realize that to sell the story there needs to be more than one version, especially since there are no coinciding stories circulating outside of the religion.
For example - some believe that [historical] Jesus had scribes, but there is no evidence that anyone was recording his words and nothing of the sort has been found so far.

In other words, we have some events describe in almost the same way, while we have others who record events the others may leave out, and we have some who report the same events with differences in the story. So??????? What exactly would are you looking for?

I am looking for evidence to the claim that Jesus died. [and was thus resurrected.]

Would you want them to record the same exact stories, in the same exact way? Would you want them to tell completely different stories which would contradict each other? I mean, exactly what would you accept?

Based upon the stories regarding Jesus, I would expect that Jesus didn't really die.

First, your wording is sort of strange here? You seem to be saying, they did not recognize him as the same person as they had followed, as if they recognized him as someone else? However, this is not the way it is recorded. In Luke 24 we read,

"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him".

So here we see, it is not as though they recognize him as someone else, but rather, they simply were, "kept from recognizing him". However, as we move on a few verses later we read,

"And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him".

Firstly they must have seen him as 'someone else' for them to recognize that 'someone else' had entered into their company.
But what we do not know [and thus cannot assume] is what the writer meant in the use of the words.
Does it mean that their minds were being played with in some unknown manner or does it mean that it was something else about the stranger suddenly in their company which lead them to conclude they were in the presence of someone who was so just like the Jesus they knew, that it must have been him, or was Jesus' body was capable of 'shape-shifting' [changing it's appearance.]

However, in relation to the story of the stranger in the company, we see that the story unfolds over the course of a whole day, with the stranger telling them all sorts of things so that the dots connected [starting out by calling them 'fools' for not being able to do this for themselves] and by the end of the day, we are informed that they had no choice but to accept the evidence that the stranger [who they did not recognize as Jesus because it was a different body] was the same person that they had followed all those previous months.

As soon as they came to that conclusion, the stranger then vanished. [became invisible to them/appeared to no longer be in their company.]

Okay, as we turn our attention to the incident with Mary Magdalene, what we see as recorded in John 20, is (Mary) "Thinking that He was the gardener". Notice, it does not say, "recognizing him as the gardener".

Why would Mary know what the gardener looked like? Clearly she assumes a stranger there with the two other strangers is the caretaker and clearly she is confused and distressed.
But most importantly, she does not recognize the stranger until he calls her by her name...so it must have been how the stranger had done this which convinced Mary that it was Jesus.

Well, the only other incident I know of would be at daybreak, with the disciples in a boat off shore, and see Jesus on shore, as they have been fishing through the night with no catch. Jesus instructs them where to cast the net, and of course they have a net so full, it is difficult to pull the net in, and it is at this point, one of the disciples, does not "recognize" (as if he can actually see him) this as Jesus, but simply says, "It is the Lord"! Once they were all on shore, as it is recorded, they all seem to recognize this person as Jesus.

These are the only events such as this I am aware of. The above would not be my "explanation for this phenomena" because I have no explanation. Rather, this is the way it is recorded.

So we have hearsay [the stories] and within that, we have incidences which align and form an image of someone who has a distinctly different body than the normal Human form as it appears to be able to do things which normal human forms are not seen to be capable of doing.

But overall, there is nothing about the story of the resurrection [The Subject] which can be pointed to as factual [rather than hearsay] and thus, to believe in said story - one has to do so on faith.

[bluegreenearth]

Those facts do not make it rational to infer eating an apple is the best explanation. Lying is also demonstrable in reality. It’s more prevalent than the actual eating of apples. It’s probably justifiable to assume Bob is telling the truth because there is likely no benefit for him and his friends to be lying about him eating an apple (unless other information comes to light changing that).

Those additional facts you mentioned above are, as you've acknowledged, demonstrable in reality and collectively function to justify "eating an apple" as an inference to the best explanation. So, this does not negate the requirement that the things described in an explanation be demonstrable in reality.

This is an inference to the best explanation that doesn’t prove the existence of apples but, rather, is helped by those previous demonstrations of those elements of the situation. Yet, that doesn’t mean all inferences must be supported by previous demonstrations of the existence of all elements of the situation. Many inferences are why we believe X exists at all.

Please give an example of "X" because I'm unaware of anything I believe exists in reality which hasn't been demonstrated to exist through direct or indirect observation (e.g. novel testable predictions). Please understand, "X" needs to be example of something with an empirical existence because the NT claims of a resurrection are describing the empirical existence of a supernaturally resurrected decomposing corpse. Therefore, it would not be analogous for an example of "X" to be an abstract or a conceptual thing like a number or the feeling of hunger.

You said ‘true’ not valid, so I talked about truth not validity. That’s not me equivocating. I have not said or implied that any valid argument should be accepted as showing that the imagined thing it is describing also exists in reality. I agree that the argument must be valid and all premises be true.

If the word "true" was used inappropriately in one of my earlier posts, I apologize for the error. I usually take an almost unreasonable amount of time carefully considering my word choices and often go back to edit my posts when I subsequently notice an error. Nevertheless, if I substitute the word "valid" for the word "true" in your original statement, it remains in error:

If an argument is valid, yes. By definition a valid argument is an argument that gives us truth about reality. What’s wrong with that? The aether argument was not valid, thus it isn’t shown to exist in reality.

Again, a valid argument does not necessarily give us truth about reality. The luminiferous aether argument was valid but failed to demonstrate the existence of luminiferous aether in reality.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #578]
Thank you for your kind words. I’m here trying to make sense of life along with others trying to do the same. I appreciate being able to do that here with you and many others. I thank you for your questions and doubts and sharing your thoughts on how to make sense of this all and allowing me to do the same.

Fair's fair. Your comment there - "trying to make sense...", that's honesty. That ain't telling pretty thing ya didn't take out the trash cause there was a rabid raccoon in a Batman suit. It's admitting it mighta been it a Catwoman suit, and the lights was low.

Prefacing my following comments, I'd like to note the idea of "cognitive dissonance", and accuse any and all, myself included, of it might occur, or it might not. That ain't no claim to nefarity, just a how do ya do...

A "rise of the Christian movement" is not probative regarding a resurrection, it's just merely an argument from numbers. Belief is not immediately fact.

I have never said or meant it as an argument from numbers. I have never said or meant belief is immediately fact (and have stated such previously in this thread). The point about the rise of the Christian movement pointing to an actual resurrection basically concerns how they wouldn’t have made that up as their central message and stuck with it unless they really thought it occurred. Them thinking it occurred is not proof that it occurred. That isn’t the argument. The argument is that it actually occurred makes the best sense of this fact coupled with an empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances.

I stand by my comments, as they relate to the implications of your claims. You keep on atelling how the "rise of the Christian movement" somehow supports a "factual" claim regarding the OP/resurrection. That they "wouldn't have made that up" is no better'n, "but danged if they didn't". We have no means of confirming this, either way.

What we can say, what evidence does support, is sometimes, well, humans think em up some goofy stuff. They might be good folk, they might mean well, but, well, goofy.

It's like saying my girlfriend lives in Canada, and I can't remember her name right now.
It goes to credibility:
"Ol' Bob there, the goat wrangler, he swears it up and down he done saw him some dead dude come astrolling by, and don't it beat all, it was Jesus himself!"
"Hey Bob, leave that goat be a minute, d'you really say all that?"
"Naw, I said I took me a mouthful of mushrooms, and I'm here to tell it, it was the fanciest trip I ever been on!"
We simply have no means of confirming if these "eyewitness" testimonies were even accurately recorded, much less to reflect reality.

We aren’t talking about one name here. Cephas is named for his. The 12 is clear who that all refers to. The original audience would have known some of the 500, could have been told who if they asked further. Naming all 500 is silly for a short tradition to pass down or a letter written to people who have already heard about the 500.

Then bring Cephas here, that we may cross examine. Bring one, or all them 500, that we may confirm Cephas accurately and reliably recorded what it is they had to tell.

You keep introducing folks as "witnesses", but what ya fail so miserably at, is the showing they speak em the truth.

"The 12" might just well it be, "Well there was a bunch scattered out there, but I'm here to tell it, they'll tell it just like it is I do."

We have absolutely no means to question these folks, that we might determine if they'd ever heard of reality, much less to've witnessed it. I'm a good example of this. If I go off my meds, I start hearing voices - "real" voices (medical studies imply) - but they ain't no more there'n I'm smart to boot.

You (previously) refer to "historical facts", and "witnesses" you can't present, 'cept to fuss on how it is, there sits their claims.

That's no more logical, nor supportive to the truth, than me telling the pretty thing I wasn't drinking all day, someone slipped me a Mickey.

The data, within this thread alone, is sound indication that you, nor any other theist can put fact to the OP/resurrection.

You can pile you up a musty, wretched, stench-filled pile of steaming faith, but in not one iota of that pile will we find fact.

Even if we had the 500 names, we wouldn’t have writings from many, if any.

So we see you accept the "testimony" of these 500 on faith. And to tell it, a big ol smoldering pile of it.

Just fess it. Faith ain't necessarily a bad thing. Heck, I got faith the pretty thing loves me, but dangitall, she still insists I can't have me no dessert lest I eat me up all them little green peas. My faith here is contradictory to the evidence. It's contradictory to how it sickens me just to see them little so-and-sos.

It wouldn’t solve anything. It’s not a matter of credibility. I don’t see any reason to think the lack of names or the lack of being able to cross examine would solve anything. Even if we could cross examine them and they gave us the same information, that still wouldn’t prove the resurrection. I don’t see the relevance of this critique to my argument or this issue.

It'd solve the issue of "How can we confirm what it is, they was atrying to tell."

It's absolutely a matter of credibility when you declare there's "500 eyewitnesses, only ain't it a shame, I can't tell which 500 it was, nor that they'd agree their claims're accurately represented."

Now you've added in this Cephas feller, so we're on that alone up to 501. 501 folks with claims you can't present for cross examination.

You say it yourself - "that still wouldn't prove the resurrection."

Then hush the heck up about these "500 eyewitnesses, and this other feller now, whose claims it is, if accurate, still wouldn't put fact to resurrection claims."

That's as goofy as me finding me 500 and one more nother folk who'd come to the house, just to fuss the pretty thing out about them danged green peas. Wouldn't change the fact that I'll either eat em, or I ain't getting me no pie. Neither kind.

You now admit that your claim of "500 eyewitnesses" is as useful to determining the truth of the resurrection, as, I don't know, concrete trucks're a good way to pull up a furrow.

The story of Huck Finn has been reliably recorded and passed down through several generations now. That don't mean Huck's real.

If I was arguing that because the claim of a resurrection was reliably recorded and passed down meant that it was real, then you’d have a good critique here. But that’s not my argument at all.

I propose that's exactly your argument, on account of that's the argument you keep presenting. Your argument sets into it an ad hocium mode when confronted. You adjust your thinking, your argument, to suit the objections - fair nuff. But what happens is your argument only then distances itself from initial claims / assumptions, while refusing to dismiss em.

500 folks aswearing up and down, as recorded by someone else, ain't "eyewitnesses". They're pawns in someone's attempt to sway opinion when they ain't got em no facts nor logical argument by which to do it.

Admittedly, a well placed, "Well about that" can go a long way, but in this matter, your continued attempts at referencing this whole "500 hunderd of em", this whole "rise in the Christian movement" has been an attempt by you to support the resurrection as true and factual - even if we allow that use of "well about that", this thread is littered with your references to these folks and "rises" as somehow supportive of a factual dead body fed up abeing it, and deciding to deny the entire physical nature of the universe, and trying to find him a good deal on earbuds down there at Wally World.

I'm set to think you might be trying to have it kinda both ways. You present these 500, and this "rise", then when challenged, it seems like you're admitting the reliability of such argumentation is weaker'n a two year old girl with cerebral palsy trying to climb a jungle gym.

What is it?

Do you present these "500 eyewitnesses" as reliable claimants regarding Jesus' resurrection?

Do you present the "rise in Christianity" as reliable evidence regarding Jesus' resurrection?

[JoeyKnothead]

Those facts do not make it rational to infer eating an apple is the best explanation. Lying is also demonstrable in reality. It’s more prevalent than the actual eating of apples. It’s probably justifiable to assume Bob is telling the truth because there is likely no benefit for him and his friends to be lying about him eating an apple (unless other information comes to light changing that).

When we set afretting to whether an apple got it ate or not, the argument moves from an examination of reality, into some deal there where we gotta question whether apples and teeth can both exist em in one singular universe.

IMHO, this whole line of thinking is little more'n an intellectual smokescreen, an attempt to question all we know, in avoidance of the one fact regarding this OP that we do...

Dead folks're dead. They don't fret em towns, nor strollings, nor any such as that. They just wanna lay there, in the comfort of their death, and for folks to quit trying to wake em up, just to see if they was really dead.

I'm here to tell it, when apple eating's the strongest argument one has for a resurrection, we might just as well realize reality and truth ain't gonna be available to some folks, no matter how many apples it is we chomp to show it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Those facts do not make it rational to infer eating an apple is the best explanation. Lying is also demonstrable in reality. It’s more prevalent than the actual eating of apples. It’s probably justifiable to assume Bob is telling the truth because there is likely no benefit for him and his friends to be lying about him eating an apple (unless other information comes to light changing that).

Those additional facts you mentioned above are, as you've acknowledged, demonstrable in reality and collectively function to justify "eating an apple" as an inference to the best explanation. So, this does not negate the requirement to that the things described in an explanation be demonstrable in reality.

This is an inference to the best explanation that doesn’t prove the existence of apples but, rather, is helped by those previous demonstrations of those elements of the situation. Yet, that doesn’t mean all inferences must be supported by previous demonstrations of the existence of all elements of the situation. Many inferences are why we believe X exists at all.

Please give an example of "X" because I'm unaware of anything I believe exists in reality which hasn't been demonstrated to exist through direct or indirect observation (e.g. novel testable predictions). Please understand, "X" needs to be example of something with an empirical existence because the NT claims of a resurrection are describing the empirical existence of a supernaturally resurrected decomposing corpse. Therefore, it would not be analogous for an example of "X" to be an abstract or a conceptual thing like a number or the feeling of hunger.

You said ‘true’ not valid, so I talked about truth not validity. That’s not me equivocating. I have not said or implied that any valid argument should be accepted as showing that the imagined thing it is describing also exists in reality. I agree that the argument must be valid and all premises be true.

If the word "true" was used inappropriately in one of my earlier posts, I apologize for the error. I usually take an almost unreasonable amount of time carefully considering my word choices and often go back to edit my posts when I subsequently notice an error. Nevertheless, if I substitute the word "valid" for the word "true" in your original statement, it remains in error:

If an argument is valid, yes. By definition a i]valid[/i] argument is an argument that gives us truth about reality. What’s wrong with that? The aether argument was not i]valid[/i], thus it isn’t shown to exist in reality.

Again, a valid argument does not necessarily give us truth about reality. The luminiferous aether argument was valid but failed to demonstrate the existence of luminiferous aether in reality.

This is a good point. I'm no expert in philosophy (or anything else for that matter) but I gathered that a valid argument is not necessarily true. Aether is a good example. Indeed it's axiomatic in logic that one can have a valid argument that is false because the parameters are incorrect. Indeed many (I won't say all) Theistic arguments fail on that basis. We saw 'The Bible attests that multiple witnesses saw the risen Jesus. Paul confirms this. The disciples died because they believed it. This looks a sound argument as it's worded but it takes a lot for granted - that the Bible resurrection is true (the contradictions suggest it isn't), the sightings in 1 Cor. are the same sightings (the differences suggest it isn't) and the deaths of the disciples are in the highly questionable Acts, the debatable death of James in Josephus' Antiquities and Hegesippus and the rest is Church tradition, which I would trust no more than an end of world prediction.

[bluegreenearth]

Those facts do not make it rational to infer eating an apple is the best explanation. Lying is also demonstrable in reality. It’s more prevalent than the actual eating of apples. It’s probably justifiable to assume Bob is telling the truth because there is likely no benefit for him and his friends to be lying about him eating an apple (unless other information comes to light changing that).

That quote was from Tanager. Somehow, my name became associated with it.

[JoeyKnothead]

Those facts do not make it rational to infer eating an apple is the best explanation. Lying is also demonstrable in reality. It’s more prevalent than the actual eating of apples. It’s probably justifiable to assume Bob is telling the truth because there is likely no benefit for him and his friends to be lying about him eating an apple (unless other information comes to light changing that).

That quote was from Tanager. Somehow, my name became associated with it.

Sorry bout that.

[Difflugia]

The 12 is clear who that all refers to.

Who and what the Twelve are is not clear.

Christian tradition from the third century and later is clear, but that's a harmonization of the five separate biblical traditions of who the Twelve are.

• Paul doesn't name the Twelve. He only mentions them in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Paul is notoriously sloppy about his wording in general, but a plain reading here is that Cephas wasn't one of the Twelve and the Twelve weren't Apostles.
• For Mark, the Twelve are named, but seem to be neither disciples nor apostles. Apostles are only mentioned once (6:30) and in a way that might refer to the disciples (6:35), but it's not clear. The Twelve and the disciples are both mentioned numerous of times, but rarely in the same context and never in a way that makes perfectly clear what the relationship is. There are a few references that can be read as either inclusive (14:32-33) or exclusive (16:7), but they're ambiguous. My personal guess is that Mark collected stories about both the Twelve and the disciples and just didn't work too hard to make them consistent with each other.
• Matthew names the Twelve using mostly the same list Mark does, but manuscripts are confused about whether the tenth named member is Lebbaeus, Thaddeus, or both ("Lebbaeus, also called Thaddeus"). Perhaps tellingly, one manuscript went the other way and changed Mark's Thaddeus to Lebbaeus. Matthew explicitly refers to the Twelve as both apostles and disciples and treats all three as identically the same group (Matthew's Jesus has exactly twelve disciples that are also the apostles).
• Luke names them, but Thaddeus/Lebbaeus is now "Judas of James." Luke says that the twelve apostles were chosen from among the larger group of disciples.
• John explictly names only three of the Twelve: Simon Peter, Judas Iscariot, and Thomas. The Twelve may be disciples (it's not clear), but are not the entire group (6:66-70). Andrew, Philip, and Nathaniel are named in contexts that may mean that they were also of the Twelve, but it's not explicit. John never uses the word "apostle." John is potentially the only one that refers to Peter as Cephas (all references to Peter in the Pauline epistles are likely harmonizations based on an interpolated Galatians 2:7-8).

I take this to mean that there was a tradition about who the Twelve were, but it was at least somewhat malleable. Nobody seemed to agree on what their relationships were between the Twelve, disciples, and apostles, so I infer from this that by the time these traditions were written down, the Twelve were legendary enough that nobody knew exactly who or what they were. Any testimony attributed to any of them, either by name or as "the Twelve" collectively, is equally legendary.

The original audience would have known some of the 500, could have been told who if they asked further. Naming all 500 is silly for a short tradition to pass down or a letter written to people who have already heard about the 500.

You're stating this as an established fact. What evidence establishes this as more than your own speculation?

[brunumb]

So, no actual people who can be specifically identified with their verified claims. Just almost certainly a bunch of people. Faith it is then.

Okay, if you require 100% certainty, then have fun with math and definitions and not believing anything else about the world. If you aren’t requiring 100% certainty, then “almost certainly” should be good enough.

It's not about being 100% certain. It's about your statement being an expression of opinion rather than actual evidence.

You also said:

The original audience would have known some of the 500, could have been told who if they asked further. Naming all 500 is silly for a short tradition to pass down or a letter written to people who have already heard about the 500.

Again, names are not the real issue. What hasn't been established is that there actually were these 500. Easy enough for someone to make false claims such as that in order to prop up whatever it is they are trying to sell to the punters.

[Noose001]

IF! You have no case if time didn't start. All you have is fanciful speculation. We can trace the evolution of our universe almost back to what we refer to as t=0, but that is just the possible beginning of this iteration of space-time and not necessarily the beginning of time. We don't know exactly what existed or what happened in that infinitesimally small period of time that we can't reach back past.

The phrase lacks merit. You want to point to t=0 but that isn't the beginning of time?!

[TRANSPONDER]

The 12 is clear who that all refers to.

Who and what the Twelve are is not clear.

Christian tradition from the third century and later is clear, but that's a harmonization of the five separate biblical traditions of who the Twelve are.

• Paul doesn't name the Twelve. He only mentions them in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Paul is notoriously sloppy about his wording in general, but a plain reading here is that Cephas wasn't one of the Twelve and the Twelve weren't Apostles.
• For Mark, the Twelve are named, but seem to be neither disciples nor apostles. Apostles are only mentioned once (6:30) and in a way that might refer to the disciples (6:35), but it's not clear. The Twelve and the disciples are both mentioned numerous of times, but rarely in the same context and never in a way that makes perfectly clear what the relationship is. There are a few references that can be read as either inclusive (14:32-33) or exclusive (16:7), but they're ambiguous. My personal guess is that Mark collected stories about both the Twelve and the disciples and just didn't work too hard to make them consistent with each other.
• Matthew names the Twelve using mostly the same list Mark does, but manuscripts are confused about whether the tenth named member is Lebbaeus, Thaddeus, or both ("Lebbaeus, also called Thaddeus"). Perhaps tellingly, one manuscript went the other way and changed Mark's Thaddeus to Lebbaeus. Matthew explicitly refers to the Twelve as both apostles and disciples and treats all three as identically the same group (Matthew's Jesus has exactly twelve disciples that are also the apostles).
• Luke names them, but Thaddeus/Lebbaeus is now "Judas of James." Luke says that the twelve apostles were chosen from among the larger group of disciples.
• John explictly names only three of the Twelve: Simon Peter, Judas Iscariot, and Thomas. The Twelve may be disciples (it's not clear), but are not the entire group (6:66-70). Andrew, Philip, and Nathaniel are named in contexts that may mean that they were also of the Twelve, but it's not explicit. John never uses the word "apostle." John is potentially the only one that refers to Peter as Cephas (all references to Peter in the Pauline epistles are likely harmonizations based on an interpolated Galatians 2:7-8).

I take this to mean that there was a tradition about who the Twelve were, but it was at least somewhat malleable. Nobody seemed to agree on what their relationships were between the Twelve, disciples, and apostles, so I infer from this that by the time these traditions were written down, the Twelve were legendary enough that nobody knew exactly who or what they were. Any testimony attributed to any of them, either by name or as "the Twelve" collectively, is equally legendary.

The original audience would have known some of the 500, could have been told who if they asked further. Naming all 500 is silly for a short tradition to pass down or a letter written to people who have already heard about the 500.

You're stating this as an established fact. What evidence establishes this as more than your own speculation?

Very good. I have long had doubts about the twelve disciples. I have read quite a few theories about this being based on zodiacal signs for no very good reason that I could see. But I had a nagging feeling that Jesus' family might have been more involved in his mission than the Gospels imply. I'd always thought that James (the Lord's brother as Paul calls him) was identified with James the less (not the son of Zebedee) of the disciples and he got his position as spokesbod for the Jesus -party because he was related to Jesus, otherwise, why? I'd also been struck by how the disciples seem to double - up. We have two Simons; Cephas and Simon the zealot, father of Judas Iscariot. And how interesting that the 'bad guy' of the apostles has a zealot for a father. I niff a long hidden herring. And wasn't there another Judas 'not Iscariot'?

Anyway, aside suspicions about that, that 500 who saw Jesus together is a bit odd. Frankly it could be a complete lie. But that's not Paul's way (nor the Biblical apologist, usually ) but he rather fiddles what he has to make it work for him. I suspect that letter from James about what Gentiles have to do to be regarded as good as Jews was misrepresented by Paul to suit himself and his mission. Dietary laws and circumcision is significantly dropped, but then I recall that the Noahide Laws don't impose that on 'associate Jews' either (1). But it just struck me as a bit vague.

But anyway, was it really 500 or so of the Nazorene party all seeing Jesus together and going 'Wah!!'? Was it a megachurch experience? I just know that I wouldn't buy a used car from Paul and I am certain -sure that he wangles a LOT of the basis of what he says to suit himself. You can see that in Romans where he rips OT quotes out of context to fit what he is trying to prove, and he takes Abraham's righteousness through faith in God and makes it Faith in Jesus, which is cutting out Abrahamic righteousness altogether. That is, Gentiles can't get away with just Bible- God belief, it has to be Jesus - belief.
There's also the blinkered exhortation of the Corinthians, who seem to be having a whale of a time, to behave otherwise they might forfeit their Salvation (see? You need Works, too ) and he fails to recognize (or admit, at least) that his belief that Jesusfaith would turn them all into plaster saints was builded on sand. Suffice it to say I see Paul as a self -serving fiddler and fraud. So I have some doubts about his 500 seeing Jesus in their altogether.

(1) I was told by a Jew on my former board that 'associate Jews' would have a part of the world - to -come, whereas the other gentiles, if not slaughtered during Armageddon, would die of plagues and be bulldozed into mass graves, serve them right, and when I asked just what part non -Jews would play in the New world run by Jews under God's messiah, he was a bit vague.