Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

[liamconnor]

(Preliminary: this thread is not about "The Bible". It is about an historical situation--i.e. the origins of the early church--i.e. the claimed resurrection. No document will be judged "better" or "more reliable" simply on the grounds that "it's in the Bible". We will use the same thing used in all historical investigations--common sense and historical methodology)

It seems that folks on this thread still do not understand how history is done and what amounts to historical evidence; analogies between N.T. studies and present day courtroom scenes are made— since we cannot cross examine so-called eyewitnesses of the N.T., clearly Christianity is a sham. As if we could cross examine ANY historical figure!

As Aristotle pointed out to us, every science yields its own degree of knowledge and to require more is not an indication of the science’s weakness but of your own. History is conducted by analyzing and comparing documents; the degree of knowledge it yields ranges from implausible to beyond reasonable doubt. One can always doubt an historical claim; whether one can do so reasonably is another question. Anybody claiming on a thread entitled “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection� that “eyewitness testimony is not evidence� simply does not know what he is talking about and should refrain from commenting on such threads. There is just no point in debating with such a person on the level of history—stick to geometrical problems.

To reinforce the initial preliminary, I quote DI

The reason that Christianity is a "sham" is because it doesn't merely claim to be history, it claims to be the TRUTH. And it even accuses everyone who refuses to believe in it of having "rejected God" and having chosen evil over good etc.

This is an historical investigation. Please drop all questions about the ancient documents' "divine status"; all assumptions that you know what "Christians believe" or even what "Christianity has believed" about the Bible are to be suspended. We will treat them as we treat Josephus or an anthology of ancient Roman historians.

To begin this thread, I analyze what is probably the earliest Christian creed we have, from 1 Cor. 15. I ask that we do some real, mature history: the kind of history done with all ancient documents.

I care very much for structure, and so here is how I’ve structured my argument: 1) I give the proposition with a defense; 2) I voice a common objection; 3) I meet that objection in a rejoinder; 4) I give my conclusion.

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric�. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

Next Question (after hearing reasonable responses): When did Paul receive this creed and from whom? Is there a paper trail of this transmission?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 16 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Hey, instead of trying to counsel me, why not enter into the actual debate of this thread.

Instead of encouraging me to enter into the debate, why not respond to the many and various posts I have already provided you with? Here is a really good one, which I have posted for you more than once, and which so far you have studiously avoided responding to.





First, let's address the whole "handful of demoralized cowering apostles" misconception.

Acts 1:
[15] And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

The disciples of Jesus amounted to a good deal more than the eleven remaining apostles. And they were CLEARLY prepared to move boldly and decisively.

TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ACTS AND THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES, HERE IS A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE EMPTY TOMB WHICH PROVIDES A COMPLETELY NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE MYTH OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS. NO FLYING REANIMATED CORPSES ARE REQUIRED.


***

John 19:
[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

When was Jesus executed? ON THE DAY OF PREPARATION. In other words, on Friday, the day before the Sabbath which was also Passover that year.

Matthew 27:
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[47] Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
[48] And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
[49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

What time did Jesus die? Sometime in the NINTH HOUR, on the day of preparation. Nine hours after sunrise. Approximately 3:00 PM. And what happened next?

Luke 23:
[50] And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just:
[51] (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
[52] This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
[53] And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was lain.

John 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

All four Gospels are consistent in claiming that Joseph of Arimethaea who was a disciple of Jesus received permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus.

And so after receiving permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus the disciples took the body to Joseph's brand new tomb, because it was "nigh at hand" to the place where Jesus was executed.

Understand the nature of such rock cut tombs. They were common among the rich, but they were never intended to be the burial site for a single person. These were constructed as family tombs, intended to house the remains of entire generations of family members. Only Joseph, his wife, his sons and their the wives would be expected to be interred in such a family crypt. Jesus was not family. Jesus had his OWN family, some 70 or so miles to the north east of Jerusalem in Galilee.

Now, notice that according to John the corpse of Jesus was prepared exceedingly well, coated in 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes. Myrrh is the resin derived from the Commiphora tree. It is naturally insect repellent and has an extremely sweet and pungent smell. Mixed with aloe it forms a natural resin paste. Coating the body of Jesus with such a mixture would have served to arrest the process of decay for a few days, but it was not a long term preservative. Such an expensive process would have served no purpose at all if the body had been intended to have been left to the natural process of decay in Joseph's tomb. Coating the body in this manner MAKES PERFECT SENSE HOWEVER, if the intention was to take the body on a journey of four or five days.

Because, you see, Joseph never intended his new family tomb to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus. Nor were any funeral rites done there. Joseph's tomb was simply used as a convent private place to wash and prepare the body because it was his property and it was close to the place of execution.

John19:
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Matt.27
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Gospel Matthew gives few details of the preparation itself. Notice however that there is no mention of any funeral rites. When the preparation of the body was completed, they left closing the door (great stone) behind them.

Moving on to the following day.

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

When did the priests go to Pilate and request a guard at the tomb? Sometime THE NEXT DAY. That would be on Saturday, the holy day. And so the priests went out to the closed tomb, sealed it with seals consisting of cords and wax or clay embossed with an official seal, and then set a guard. But they did not open it to inspect it for the body of Jesus, due to the nature of the day and the prohibition of their own laws. Their actions according to Matthew 27:66 tell us SPECIFICALLY that they were uncertain if the body was still inside. If the priests had known for a certainty that the body was still in the tomb, no seals would have been needed. Posting the guard would have been enough. Being unsure if the body was inside necessitated the placement of official seals, to insure that whatever the condition inside the tomb was, it would remain exactly in that condition until the priests could come back and inspect the tomb for the body. And the earliest that could be accomplished would be the next morning... SUNDAY MORNING. Placing seals on the tomb insured against the possibility of the guards taking a bribe and allowing the body to be taken, since the priests had no way of knowing if the body had even been inside in the first place. Since the priests DID set seals, then clearly they were unsure if the body was inside. And since the tomb proved to be empty the next morning, then OBVIOUSLY the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it on Saturday, as they were afraid it might be. Concluding that the corpse came back to life and left on it's own is pretty FAR FROM OBVIOUS!

So who had ACTUALLY taken the body of Jesus? Well, WHO WERE THE LAST ONES WITH IT?

John 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

And the answer would be that HIS DISCIPLES got permission from the Roman governor to take possession of the body of Jesus and were therefore the last ones to be clearly in control of it. We last read of the body of Jesus, in the tomb, being prepared by his followers. Heavily wrapped with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic spices mixed into the wrappings. If they had been intending to take the body on a journey of many days, they could hardly have prepared it any better.

And where DID the followers of Jesus journey following his execution?

Matthew 28:
[16] "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them."


They journeyed to the dead man's home region, Galilee. A five day or so journey on foot to the north east of Jerusalem. Presumably the mountain in question would be 1886 foot high Mt. Tabor, which dominates the southern plain of Galilee, and is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt_Tabor

Mountain caves were commonly used as burial sites. And we know that the apostles, at least, journeyed back to the dead man's home region right after his death. The dead man's mother also disappears from the story during this period. She is at the crucifixion, but NOT at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Where do we next pick her up? WITH THE DISCIPLES SOME SIX WEEKS LATER, NEWLY RETURNED FROM GALILEE. (Acts 1:12-14).

So what conclusion can be reached from these facts? First and most important, that the tomb was discovered to be empty, not because the corpse came back to life and wandered away, but because the priests had secured AN EMPTY TOMB. And it was empty because the followers of Jesus had already moved the body. Moved it where? Where did the apostles go immediately after the crucifixion? GALILEE! The dead man's home. They took the body back to his home and his family to be laid in it's final resting place.

Keep in mind that on that Passover weekend Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims for the celebration of the holy day. One million, according to Josephus. That number is almost certainly a vast overestimate, but even a quarter of that number would have been a huge amount of people, moving around inside and outside of the city. With the body of Jesus loaded into an animal drawn cart, and how ELSE would it have been transported, once the group traveling with the body had mixed in with the throngs of people, they were essentially gone. When Joseph and Nicodemus, and any other of the followers of Jesus who might have been secretly involved, had finished prepping the body they simply packed up and left, loading the heavily wrapped body into the same cart they would have used to transport the body to the tomb from Calvary in the first place, and disappeared out into the throngs of pilgrims, closing the tomb behind them to keep out the unwanted. By Sunday they were just one group moving towards Galilee out of thousands of groups undertaking the return trip home after the celebration. No great trick or slight or hand involved, but no flying reanimated corpse either.

But what of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus? The fact is THEY DON'T EXIST!!! Far from hundreds of eyewitnesses attesting to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Christians proclaim exist we have in fact only five accounts: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Acts, written by the author of Gospel Luke, and Paul's account in 1 Corinthians. These are the five sources for the "hundreds of eyewitnesses" to the resurrected Jesus. There are NO OTHER ACCOUNTS! Except of course for the dozens of so call apocryphal documents produced at the time, which even the most ardent Christian theologian recognize to be nothing more than flights of fiction and fantasy.

Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however, and no accounts by the "above 500" themselves exist, or have ever been known to exist. Paul is not himself a part of the Gospel accounts however. Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a personal witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels.

According to Acts 9, while on the road to Damascus, some years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus, Paul became sick and disoriented. In fact he had symptoms consistent with heat stroke and dehydration, or possibly dysentery which also produces dehydration. At any rate Paul had to be helped into the city by his traveling companions who then left him at the home of a Christian man to be cared for. Sick and delirious, unable to eat or drink for three days, Paul believed after his recovery that during his illness he had experienced a vision of Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier. This experience proved to be life changing for Paul and after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. So we are left to conclude either that Paul, in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, that Paul actually MET WITH AND TALKED WITH A DEAD MAN. The question is of course, which of these two possibilities is the more likely? And the answer is as unavoidable as it is obvious, it just doesn't happen to be the one that Christians prefer.

And so Paul, who was not himself present for any of the Gospel accounts of the risen Jesus, has provided A STORY of 500 eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians. And yet we have no such testimony from the supposed eyewitnesses themselves. The same may be said for the various "witnesses" recorded in the Gospels. And significantly, 1 Corinthians, which was written by Paul circa 55 AD., represents the VERY EARLIEST MENTION HISTORICALLY OF THE RISEN JESUS EVER! Jesus was executed, according to the time frame established by the Gospels, circa 30 AD. In other words THE VERY FIRST mention of the risen Jesus does not occur until some QUARTER OF A CENTURY AFTER HIS DEATH. And then is recorded by an individual who clearly was not present at the time. Rather than dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, no information one way or the other was produced concerning Jesus at all, by anyone, for the first quarter of a century after he was supposed to have been executed. And specifically, there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected dead man AT ALL at the time it was supposed to have occurred. What we do have, years later, are records of what early Christians like Paul had come to believe and were in the process of telling. Stories like this one in Matthew, written anonymously decades after Jesus was executed.

Matt. 27:
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


This fantastic story is corroborated by NO OTHER ACCOUNT, either in scripture or in Jewish historical accounts. So how did these stories of the risen Jesus originate? Well, what did the priests tell Pilate that they were afraid the followers of Jesus intended to do?

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OCCURRED. The tomb proved to be empty! Some six weeks after the crucifixion (Acts 1:3, 1:12) the disciples returned from Galilee, along with Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14), to Jerusalem. And now they began to proclaim the risen Jesus. But only after, according to the disciples, the risen Jesus flew up into the clouds and disappeared (Acts 1:9). Who saw the risen Jesus? The disciples, according to the disciples. Who saw Jesus fly away up into the clouds? The disciples, according to the disciples. What were the priests afraid that the disciples intended to do? Spread a rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. What did the disciples do? Six weeks after the crucifixion and upon their return from Galilee they began to spread the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead.

So, in all honesty which is the more likely? That a group of friends quietly took their dead friend, along with the dead man's mother, back to the dead man's family home for burial, and then returned a few weeks later to begin spreading the preposterous rumor that the dead man had returned to life, appeared only to them, and then ultimately flew away? Or is it more likely that the dead man ACTUALLY DID return to life and ultimately flew away? In reality is a missing corpse more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living, or is it more likely to be the result of actions taken by the corpse? IN ALL HONESTY!!!

So, yes, that is my hypothesis.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

This is totally straw man on your behalf. Abraham Lincoln lived only 200 years ago. And there exist countless independent historical records concerning his life as the President of the United States. For you to compare this with with 2000+ demigod myths that have no independent historical records to back them up is nothing short of absurd.

#1 This is bad logic. It doesn't matter how long ago the event was; what is important is how separated the event is from the documents which report them. Your logic would mean that with each year the existence of ABraham Lincoln would become more and more implausible.

It's not about how separated the event is from the documents tat report them. It's about how many independent historical records exist.

Clearly you know nothing of history works.

#2 One can always doubt these so called countless historical records--they were all made up and we are all victims of a hoax.

The more independent records that exist the more people would need to be involved in the hoax. There comes a time when it's no longer reasonable to believe that such and overwhelming number of people would need to be in on the hoax.

Once again, you aren't even remotely being reasonable. To the contrary you are demanding extreme absurdities.

# "2000" demigod myths. Sorry, that won't do. YOu have to prove first that they are myths.

Baloney. I don't need to prove anything. The only people who need to prove something are the people who are demanding that they are true.

If you claim they are true then the burden of proof for that claim is on you.

If I see them as having no more credence than myths I don't need to do anything.

I'm not asking you to "Believe" they are myths. I personally couldn't care less what you believe. Therefore I have no desire to DEBATE with you on the topic that you must accept them as myths.

You are the one who is trying to DEBATE with others that these ancient stories are TRUE. Therefore the burden of poof of that claim is entirely upon your shoulders.

The claim that people who don't accept your conclusions have a burden of proof to convince you that you must accept their conclusions is nonsense.

I don't care whether you accept they are myths or not. I simply reject your claim that they should be accepted as historical facts.

As far as man having walked on the moon is concerned, I actually lived through that event. I watched on TV, and followed it closely long before that. Science was my love. I also studied physics and I was well aware that everything required to put a man on the moon was indeed readily available in physics.

So it's easy to believe that it actually happened. Could it have been a hoax? Sure, but if it was a hoax the whole world would have had to have been in on it, not just the USA. So it's very reasonable to believe that it actually happened.

Not the whole world.

Yes, the whole world was watching. Do you think countries like Russia, China, Japan, Europe, etc., weren't interested in humans landing on the moon.

Don't forget also, there was an international "space race" going on at the time between the USA and the USSR. Do you think the USSR would just sit back and accept a hoax that the USA had beat them out? They were no doubt monitoring the entire mission. They hear the radio signals of coming from the space craft as it traveled to the moon and back.

How are you going to hoax that?

To claim that the Moon Landing was a hoax would require that the USSR was in on the hoax. How silly is that?

Also there's no need for anything supernatural here. You keep dismissing the supernatural element, but I refuse to do that. Many people have already pointed out to you that when considering history if there are rational explanation those must be considered to be more realistic than outrageous supernatural tales.

I am not dismissing the supernatural element. I am dismissing those who bring their philosophical assumptions to historical questions. You seem to belong to this camp; why do you keep coming back to historical threads?

These aren't "historical threads".

Nothing you have suggested thus far even remotely equates to valid historical methods.

Everything you have posted thus far has been nothing but denial and straw man arguments that are so flimsy they can't even stand up on their own.

If you want to introduce a straw man argument at least build one that needs to be "blown down". Thus far the straw man arguments you have been trying to build just fall apart on their own with no need to even blow them down.

[liamconnor]

If you are a philosophical skeptic who will honestly say "I have no more reason to believe that ABraham Lincoln existed than to deny it" or that "man has walked on the moon" then I applaud you.

If you are anything else, please let me know now, so I don't have to read your posts anymore.

You very badly need to spend some effort exploring the difference between well documented and poorly documented.

Suurrreeee.

In the meantime, deal with the actual OP.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

You wrote this:

Abraham Lincoln lived only 200 years ago.

implying that temporal distance was important.

then you wrote this

It's not about how separated the event is from the documents tat report them. It's about how many independent historical records exist.

Why include 200 years and the 2000 years if temporal distance didn't matter?

You are all over the place.

I am done playing this game with you. The OP is about an ancient historical document.

Engage that or start a different thread.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 21 by Tired of the Nonsense]

There has to be some rule about entering a thread only to direct a person to another thread.

I read it. It was exhausting. I recall asking you whether it belonged under the general heading "The Disciples lied about the REsurrection". I don't recall seeing a response to that. send me a link if you did, since that is pretty important.

After that, deal with this OP or move on.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to liamconnor]

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric�. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

This is contained in the current OP. My explanation deals with all of this and more. It is in fact exactly the historical analysis that you have repeatedly challenged anyone to provide you. Resolutely ignoring it simply makes you appear more and more disingenuous.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 26 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I asked you to send me a link where you answered the question, "Does your hypothesis belong to the general hypothesis, The Disciples Lied about the Resurreciton."

Send me a link. I don't even remember which thread all this was on.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 13 by H.sapiens]

What you have are letters bearing some name "Lincoln". Videos of guys in strange suits on some strange terrain (how do you even know it is the moon? Have you ever been there--you were told what the terrain looked like). Paper talking about it. You have evidence; not proof. You trust in them, because they don't threaten you.

Letters, stenography of speeches, photographs, public records, personal memoirs, etc. Lots and lots of stuff of many difference sorts. Hell, the clothing he was wearing the night he died is current on exhibit in Ford's Theater. As far as the moon is concerned, because of my work on life support systems I've met a half dozen of the men who did walk on the moon.

Regards to Jesus: We have numerous documents. You just don't like them.

No ... you have no documents that pass the standard test ... being contemporaneous. You, like the biblical "scholars" want a special exemption for Jesus stuff ... sorry, that doesn't wash. If you want to pretend you are an "historian," you can at least play by historians' rules.

Regards to other ancient history; the origins of Christianity compare quite favorably in terms of time between the event and the written accounts and attestation. Our primary sources for the history of Rome are separated from its origins by centuries. CENTURIES!!

Now, why not deal with the actual thread.

Because you aren't listening, everyone is telling you that your thread is meaningless.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 28 by H.sapiens]

I will no longer answer anything from you on this thread that does not deal with the historical evidence provided. All attempts to avoid that will be seen as evidence that you can talk ABOUT history, but you can't actually DO it.

Here is the OP

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric�. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

Only Paul knows if he was lying or not. Paul may well have fully believed his own stories. Where he got these stories only Paul knows, and Paul is not talking. The real question is, was Paul's story true? Did 500 individuals REALLY witness the risen Jesus? And the obvious answer is, "no, of course not." One thing we notice immediately, is that Paul was not present for any of events detailed in the Gospels, including the claims of post crucifixion sightings. So did Paul get this story from another source? He doesn't say, but no one else mentioned this incident. Did Paul dream it and believe that it actually occurred?

2Cor.12
[1] It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
[2] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
[3] And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

Paul apparently had trouble differentiating between dreams, visions and reality. In fact his claim to authority within the church is entirely based on his claim that he met with and spoke with the years dead Jesus during his famous journey to Damascus.

According to Acts 9, while on the road to Damascus Paul became stricken. Acts specifically indicates that at one point Paul went three days without drinking. Whatever the cause, Paul was clearly severely dehydrated and therefore deathly ill. Three days without water is a critical condition. Severe dehydration commonly effects the eyesight, as the vitreous fluid in the eye thickens and sight is diminished, and causes the neurons in the brain to misfire from lack of fluid, inevitably resulting in hallucinations. Among other symptoms.

So, sick and disoriented Paul had to be helped into the city by his traveling companions who then left him at the home of a CHRISTIAN MAN to be cared for. This is a significant point! Sick and delirious from dehydration, and while being tended to and prayed over by a CHRISTIAN MAN, Paul came to believe after his recovery that during his illness he had experienced a face to face visitation with the years dead Jesus. This experience proved to be life changing for Paul and after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. Hardly a surprise, really, given the circumstances.

But we in the 21st century, in the light of reason and logic, are left to consider whether it is more reasonable to conclude that Paul, in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, conversely, whether it is reasonable to conclude that it is more likely that Paul actually MET WITH AND CONVERSED WITH A DEAD MAN! I notice that which side of this question opinion tends to fall invariably has a very direct correlation to whether or not a person has been programmed from an early age to uncritically accept stories of miracles and flying reanimated corpses, and the like.

So is Paul's story about the famous phantom 500 contained in 1 Corinthians a lie? Not necessarily. Is there any reason to suppose that the story is true? NO, certainly not.