1 Cor 15 and My thought process

[liamconnor]

This OP is addressed to hyper-skeptics, an attitude (we can hardly call it a position) which I have little respect for, but which is so predominant here that any OP must keep in mind.

This OP is meant to clear up a very specific historical detail: a detail about an historical BELIEF, and not about the TRUTH of that Belief. In this OP the question is NOT about whether Christianity is true. What I (after the DforQ) propose is accepted by non-Christian historians.

So:

I think everyone will agree that prior to 33 AD, Christianity did not exist, and that by 50 AD it did. I think most (excepting you obscurantists) will agree that its inception was shortly after the death of Jesus, 33 AD. I think most here will therefore agree that some people in Palestine started saying that their crucified master had risen from the dead.

For this OP, let's forget the BIG question of whether Jesus was actually raised from the dead. Let's just focus on who these people were that claimed this and why they did so.

1 Cor. 15 is one of the earliest Christian documents we possess, and it includes a very short creed which Paul claims to have received. He does not identify the person or persons who handed it down to him. The creed itself claims that Peter and James, the "disciples", a group of 500 (most still alive) and "all the apostles" saw the risen Jesus.

Q for D: What can we, by sound historical judgment, believe to be certain from this claim? Again, leaving out the question of whether Jesus was raised.

I begin with my own analysis. I apologize for the tortuous detail, but, again, hyper-skeptics are rampant, and they don't seem to have the ability or desire to answer their own skeptical questions, which are really quite easy.

Paul claims that a number of people claim to have seen the risen Jesus. Either Paul was lying or was telling the truth. Of course it is 'possible' he was lying; but it is likewise 'possible' he is telling the truth. I see no plausible reason (= a reason that does not imply the preface "well, maybe Paul...") for Paul to be lying here. So I move on:

Paul claims to have received this report of multiple testimony from someone else. I doubt he is lying about this, so this raises the question of, "who handed on to him this tradition?" Surveying his other letters suggests loudly, Peter, and perhaps James and John; the former two being explicitly mentioned in the creed. Of course, it is possible someone else did. I find it extremely probable it was at the very least Peter (Gal. 1) but it doesn't really matter. Anyone who is not a hyper-skeptic will be able to make the jump to the next thought process:

But maybe Peter, or James and John, were lying? I see no reason to doubt their sincerity: i.e, they truly believed they had seen the risen Jesus. Maybe they were delusional. But liars, no.

But the creed also mentions others, like the 500.

Okay. Peter and/or James and JOhn told Paul there these 500 other folk. Okay. Perhaps Peter or James or John were lying about them? Maybe they wanted to bolster their own sincere beliefs by creating an outright lie? This is possible, but do we have rational grounds for believing it? I find none. Also, Paul himself states that most of these persons were still alive. But why would Paul believe this? Does Paul sincerely believe that there were 500 claimants, but now is lying about their current status?! It is beyond reasonable doubt that Paul believes most are still alive because he KNOWS most are still alive: that is, he has personal confirmation of this. When I survey his letters, I find confirmation. He names two apostles (a technical term for Paul referring to 'those who have seen the risen Lord') in Romans. Of course a hyper-skeptic (=a person whose willful doubt clouds all reasonable judgment) will cry out "How do we know Paul is not making up those two names!". Yes, Paul writes a letter to the Romans, asking them to greet two people whom he says are among them, knowing that they actually do not exist and that these Romans will be saying, "What? Who the hell is he talking about"!! But that is the sort of knee-jerk skepticism to be expected here. I turn to more sober minded historians....

So then, there are 500 people who CLAIM to have seen the risen Jesus. Ah! perhaps they are all lying? That is, Peter and James both sincerely believe they have seen the risen Jesus and have talked to 500 hundred people claiming the same (nor do we know whether Peter was part of the 500); but the 500 people have collaborated in one huge lie? But why?

The simplest explanation is that the creed of 1 Cor. 15 is trustworthy. We have numerous people (beyond 500) who sincerely believe they have seen the risen Jesus.

Let's assume they were delusional. Still, they believed this.

[Justin108]

It is possible he was lying (as that does not involve a logical contradiction); it is highly improbable.

I'd say it's even more improbable that Jesus came back from the dead.

Apocrypha? Do you mean pseudapigrapha?

Are you familiar with the various Biblical apocrypha? Surely you do not believe them to be true, yet one would still ask why the authors would lie. Does not being able to come up with a reason for why the authors would lie mean that they probably did not lie? Or is speculating on why the authors may have lied a secondary concern?

At any rate, is your argument nothing more than, "We know that people sometimes lie; therefore Paul most certainly was lying."?

I asked several specific questions. I would appreciate it if you answered them. A simple "yes" or "no" to each will suffice.

Here are the characteristics of HS:

Hyper-skeptics doubt for the sole purpose of doubting: they will doubt ANYTHING if they think it might be used later on against them. If a Christian makes a claim, they do not even think of the claim being made but rush on to where it might lead: they move from the observation "This claim, as innocent as it seems, may become a foundation from which to launch a bigger attack; best to doubt even this, even if I see no reason to doubt it."

Oh good, then I'm not a hyper-skeptic.

Hyperskeptics are inconsistent with their skepticism.

Do you believe in Big Foot? Alien abductions? Both of these rely heavily on eye-witness testimony. On top of that, there are even photos of Big Foot and UFO's. Do you think these witnesses are lying? Why doubt them but believe Paul? If you believe in the resurrection due mainly to eye-witness accounts, then you would have to also believe in Big Foot and alien abduction claims in order to be consistent. Otherwise I guess you're a hyper-skeptic.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

About time I replied to this thread. So let's see...

a detail about an historical BELIEF, and not about the TRUTH of that Belief.

Okay, so X people made a claim that Y happened at Z time in location Q, and for the purposes of this thread, we're not going to assume or argue whether or not it's true?

Okay, so what's the discussion going to be about? On Sep 3, 1939, Neville Chamberlain claimed that Germany had invaded Poland. We're not going to discuss whether or not what Chamberlain said is true. Okay...what would we talk about in such a discussion?

I think everyone will agree that prior to 33 AD, Christianity did not exist, and that by 50 AD it did.

Prior to 33 AD, yes, I agree. The religion did not exist, if that is indeed what you mean. By 50 AD? I disagree. What do you mean when you say "Christianity"? Do we mean the organised religion we know today, with a rich body of theology?
In my interest of precision, I would say that by 50AD, that there was a proto-Christianity. By 50AD, some or all of Paul's writings had been written (too lazy now to double check which ones). However, the beliefs of Christianity (as we recognise it today) as found in the Gospels and/or the Apocrypha? We don't know when the claims that eventually found their way into the Gospels first started floating about, but we know the Gospels are after 50AD.

I think most (excepting you obscurantists)

Why all this name calling liam? I'm going to take an aside here and ask why you constantly have to come up with these names for your debate opponents. Off hand, I can't recall ANYONE calling YOU names. We may say that something you've said is foolish, unjustified or nonsensical, but not you as a person.

will agree that its inception was shortly after the death of Jesus, 33 AD.

Well, as you predicted with the addition of name calling (not good sport there old chap), I for one do not agree. Unless you want to use the word "Christianity" to mean different things and not outline what exactly you mean?

I think most here will therefore agree that some people in Palestine started saying that their crucified master had risen from the dead.

For this OP, let's forget the BIG question of whether Jesus was actually raised from the dead. Let's just focus on who these people were that claimed this and why they did so.

Okay, agreed. For this thread, we don't care whether or not the claim is true. It's off topic.

So...who were these people?

1 Cor. 15 is one of the earliest Christian documents we possess, and it includes a very short creed which Paul claims to have received. He does not identify the person or persons who handed it down to him. The creed itself claims that Peter and James, the "disciples", a group of 500 (most still alive) and "all the apostles" saw the risen Jesus.

Q for D: What can we, by sound historical judgment, believe to be certain from this claim? Again, leaving out the question of whether Jesus was raised.

Since we're not considering whether or not the risen Jesus claim to be true...at most we can consider what Paul says about himself. Do we have writings from Peter and/or James confirming what Paul says about them? What about the 500 crowd? The other apostles?
The New Testament is very conspicuous in that none of the writings found within can be confirmed to be from Jesus's immediate disciples, closest friends or family.

Paul claims that a number of people claim to have seen the risen Jesus. Either Paul was lying or was telling the truth.

Here is your second problem, liam. The first is your name calling and agonising over your opponents.
The second problem is that you present Paul's claim as a false dichotomy. You present it as having only two possible explanations, and do not consider anything else. Either he lied, or was telling the truth.

I am not going to play by this, so I'm going to ignore it, until you admit your mistake.

I see no plausible reason (= a reason that does not imply the preface "well, maybe Paul...") for Paul to be lying here.

So truth by default? Wow...what a great analysis!

Paul claims to have received this report of multiple testimony from someone else. I doubt he is lying about this, so this raises the question of, "who handed on to him this tradition?"

So you doubt a man lies...but you do not doubt that a corpse rose from the dead. Ooops, sorry, wait...I thought the question of whether or not Jesus rose was off the table?
Wouldn't that mean that Paul 'telling the truth' is off the table by default?

Are you able to stick to your own topics?

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Paul believes most are still alive because he KNOWS most are still alive: that is, he has personal confirmation of this. When I survey his letters, I find confirmation. He names two apostles (a technical term for Paul referring to 'those who have seen the risen Lord') in Romans. Of course a hyper-skeptic (=a person whose willful doubt clouds all reasonable judgment) will cry out "How do we know Paul is not making up those two names!". Yes, Paul writes a letter to the Romans, asking them to greet two people whom he says are among them, knowing that they actually do not exist and that these Romans will be saying, "What? Who the hell is he talking about"!! But that is the sort of knee-jerk skepticism to be expected here. I turn to more sober minded historians....

I would point out that two does not equal five hundred.

So then, there are 500 people who CLAIM to have seen the risen Jesus.

You still haven't actually demonstrated that these 500 people actually existed and did actually make a claim. You just hand-waved away any thought of anyone at all making up this crowd or being deluded.

The simplest explanation is that the creed of 1 Cor. 15 is trustworthy.

I disagree. You have presented a case claiming it is trustworthy but have failed in your endeavours.

We have numerous people (beyond 500) who sincerely believe they have seen the risen Jesus.

And so...what of it? Even hypothetically speaking, were I to grant you this...so what? You've already agreed that Jesus rising from the dead is not to be considered, so this means that in this discussion, some group of people believed Jesus to have risen from the dead, but him actually rising is not allowed as an explanation.
What else have you got then?

Let's assume they were delusional. Still, they believed this.

Or how about a lesser word: mistaken? Someone somwhere at some point made the claim (whether intentionally or unintentionally) that Jesus rose from the dead and it stuck, for lack of a better term.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 17 by liamconnor]

By Christanity, the OP means only the proclamation of 1 Cor. 15, the climax of the four gospels, and the general belief that Jesus of Nazareth had been resurrected from the dead. Everything that can be gathered from the N.T.

The Gospels are dated as early as we can get them to AFTER 50 AD. The first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, I have never once heard being dated to no less than 66 AD at the absolute earliest.
So what do you mean when you say that your OP considers Christianity to include 'the climax of the four gospels?' Gospel John wasn't written until after the century had passed for crying out loud!
You're being incredibly sloppy here liam. A trained historian ought to know better.

If anyone wishes to debate that portions of the N.T. were not written until Constantine, the burden rests on him.

But whatever you declare can just be declared out right and you don't have to justify it? Christianity by 50 AD included the 'climax of the four gospels', all the while ignoring that none of the Gospels had yet been written?

At any rate, is your argument nothing more than, "We know that people sometimes lie; therefore Paul most certainly was lying."?

"We know that sometimes people lie, so disregarding Paul lying (either intentionally or unintentionally) and instead jumping to him telling about a true event is unjustified"

Yes, it's unlikely he lied...but impossible? Nope.

Hyper-skeptics doubt for the sole purpose of doubting: they will doubt ANYTHING if they think it might be used later on against them. If a Christian makes a claim, they do not even think of the claim being made but rush on to where it might lead: they move from the observation "This claim, as innocent as it seems, may become a foundation from which to launch a bigger attack; best to doubt even this, even if I see no reason to doubt it."

Hyperskeptics are inconsistent with their skepticism. They have no problem accepting the testimony of anything that is not religious. They have no problem accepting anything that can be used against religious claims: Our entire knowledge of the Jewish War comes from Josephus: yet Josephus' testimony will be consulted uncritically if anything in it can be used against Christianity. Yet when we mention Paul and 1 Cor. 15, suddenly EVERYONE is probably a liar in everything they say.

What about yourself liam? Why is it you are skeptical that someone, somewhere, at some point along the way in between 30's AD and 50AD told a fib?

[Bust Nak]

Because hyper-skeptics need to slow down and think step by step when analyzing historical data. So far, every argument I have met boils down to a faith against god and/or miracles.

If someone mentions the 500, the threadbare response is, "Just because Paul claims 500 people....doesn't make it true." As if that were the point any Christian here is making, or as if that pretty much disposes of the historical question.

It doesn't? It's up to you to establish that there are indeed 500 people. All we are have to do is to poke holes in your thesis, we are not obliged to provide alternatives.

Anyone who reads carefully, not as a hyper-skeptic, will see I do not equate belief with truth.

You say that but there you were, trying to establish a dichotomy between Paul lying and telling the truth.

Anyone not a hyper-skeptic, will understand the importance of establishing beliefs, and then from there moving on to the truth of those beliefs. It is necessary to reconstruct the historical situation before analyzing it.

Right, given the importance establishing beliefs BEFORE moving on to the truth of those beliefs, can you confirm for me that by "telling the truth" you include sincere mistakes?

It is astounding how skeptics like to lie in the corners of vague suggestions without coming out in the open and taking a stance. For instance, the above is wishy-washy even on whether Paul made up the tradition or received it! From analyzing the data, do you find it more probable that Paul received it from someone else, or had made it up, but attributed it to fictional people!?

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I thought I made it very clear in my original post that the historical detail is not interesting if Christianity is not true.

And yet this kind of non-commitment passes here as respectable historical work!

I wouldn't call my non-commitment passes respectable historical work, just respectable apologetics (or should that be anti-apologetics?)

How about commit to something...

No thanks. That means defending claims that I am not prepare to defend. I don't want to give anyone the impression that I am "obviously devoted" to any theory.

Are you saying that...

I am saying making up witnesses would be an effective way of getting people to believe in a lie, given the difficulty in following up.

Do have a single, solid, conviction about the historical scenario?

You will have to make do with my wishy-washy "negation" conviction that things didn't happen as depicted in the narrative.