Julius Caesar vs. Paul

[liamconnor]

All of history comes down to claims. All of them can be reduced to natural conclusions. A person who says he saw a ghost can be reduced to the natural conclusions: he lied; he was deceived (by a prank, by his own imagination, by an hallucination). A person who says he knows someone who saw ghost can likewise be split up into various claims: is the person lying about someone else? Or is he telling the truth about another's CLAIM, though that person is lying, or is deceived, or suffered from an hallucination.

It all gets complex...but not really that complex. It all comes down to lying and believing.

Thus we look at two claims:

In his memoirs, Julius Caesar CLAIMS that the existence of two soldiers, Lucius V. and Titus P. He CLAIMS a certain kind of relationship between the two.

All of this is very NATURAL.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul CLAIMS that some 500 people CLAIM they saw the risen Jesus; he CLAIMS that some of these 500+ have died, but he CLAIMS most are still alive.

All of this is also very natural: Paul can know of people that CLAIM anything.

Nothing supernatural is presupposed here.

In the following question, we are opposing one Natural CLAIM, vs. another Natural CLAIM.

Question for debate:

Given that both involve nothing more than CLAIMS and are therefore purely NATURAL (in both there is clearly a man making the CLAIM), should we automatically assume that because Paul is supporting a MIRACLE he is automatically lying about his CLAIM about the 500+ (that is, it is a priori true that Paul has never once heard about some 500+); but because Julius Caesar's CLAIM does not involve a miracle, his CLAIM should be considered true?


Put shortly: do we have reason to believe that Paul DISBELIEVED in the existence of 500 or so persons who CLAIMED (they could be lying, but Paul would not know this) they saw Jesus?

Do we have reason to believe that Caesar DISBELIEVED his report of Vorenus and Pullo.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to liamconnor]

“Given that both involve nothing more than CLAIMS and are therefore purely NATURAL (in both there is clearly a man making the CLAIM), should we automatically assume that because Paul is supporting a MIRACLE he is automatically lying about his CLAIM about the 500+ (that is, it is a priori true that Paul has never once heard about some 500+); but because Julius Caesar's CLAIM does not involve a miracle, his CLAIM should be considered true?
Put shortly: do we have reason to believe that Paul DISBELIEVED in the existence of 500 or so persons who CLAIMED (they could be lying, but Paul would not know this) they saw Jesus?

Do we have reason to believe that Caesar DISBELIEVED his report of Vorenus and Pullo. “

We have two hearsays one from Paul and one from Caesar.
Paul talks about 500 people seeing Jesus.
Caesar talks about two centurions bravely fighting the Nervi.

We cannot infer from these hearsays alone that there really were 500 people seeing Jesus or two centurions bravely fighting the Nervi.

The correct conclusion is:
- there might have been 500 people seeing Jesus or not.
- there might have been two centurions called Lucius Vorenus
and Titus Pullo bravely fighting the Nervi or not.

That's it.

People are more inclined to believe one claim over the other because one involves things we have a highly degree of certainty when it comes to their existence like centurions, the Gallic wars, some people fighting bravely against enemies because of ambition while the other one involves things we have an very small degree of certainty when it comes to their existence like demigods, gods, resurrections.

[Justin108]

All of history comes down to claims. All of them can be reduced to natural conclusions. A person who says he saw a ghost can be reduced to the natural conclusions: he lied; he was deceived (by a prank, by his own imagination, by an hallucination). A person who says he knows someone who saw ghost can likewise be split up into various claims: is the person lying about someone else? Or is he telling the truth about another's CLAIM, though that person is lying, or is deceived, or suffered from an hallucination.

It all gets complex...but not really that complex. It all comes down to lying and believing.

Thus we look at two claims:

In his memoirs, Julius Caesar CLAIMS that the existence of two soldiers, Lucius V. and Titus P. He CLAIMS a certain kind of relationship between the two.

All of this is very NATURAL.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul CLAIMS that some 500 people CLAIM they saw the risen Jesus; he CLAIMS that some of these 500+ have died, but he CLAIMS most are still alive.

All of this is also very natural: Paul can know of people that CLAIM anything.

Nothing supernatural is presupposed here.

In the following question, we are opposing one Natural CLAIM, vs. another Natural CLAIM.

Question for debate:

Given that both involve nothing more than CLAIMS and are therefore purely NATURAL (in both there is clearly a man making the CLAIM), should we automatically assume that because Paul is supporting a MIRACLE he is automatically lying about his CLAIM about the 500+ (that is, it is a priori true that Paul has never once heard about some 500+); but because Julius Caesar's CLAIM does not involve a miracle, his CLAIM should be considered true?


Put shortly: do we have reason to believe that Paul DISBELIEVED in the existence of 500 or so persons who CLAIMED (they could be lying, but Paul would not know this) they saw Jesus?

Do we have reason to believe that Caesar DISBELIEVED his report of Vorenus and Pullo.

Hey. Just a friendly reminder. You have several unanswered rebuttals to your old posts. We would like you to respond to them. Much appreciated.

[JehovahsWitness]

All of history comes down to claims. All of them can be reduced to natural conclusions. A person who says he saw a ghost can be reduced to the natural conclusions: he lied; he was deceived (by a prank, by his own imagination, by an hallucination).

What about the third option ie that he actually saw a ghost?

[Bust Nak]

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul CLAIMS that some 500 people CLAIM they saw the risen Jesus; he CLAIMS that some of these 500+ have died, but he CLAIMS most are still alive.

All of this is also very natural: Paul can know of people that CLAIM anything.

Elephant in the room - Jesus was supposed to be dead. That is not very natural at all.

Put shortly: do we have reason to believe that Paul DISBELIEVED in the existence of 500 or so persons who CLAIMED (they could be lying, but Paul would not know this) they saw Jesus?

No, the alternative is that he was deceived (by a prank, by his own imagination, by an hallucination,) like you mentioned above.

Do we have reason to believe that Caesar DISBELIEVED his report of Vorenus and Pullo.

No, why?

[Willum]

So Julius Caesar, a real person claims to see something that has happened before, and probably will again.
Or Paul, a person whom has no evidence to show he exists, claims to see something impossible.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

1 Cor. 15 says Cephas (Peter), James, Paul etc. only knew Jesus from VISIONS/DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures. Not what we would consider real life.

1 Cor. 15.:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."