Resurrection vs. Alien abduction / Big Foot

[Justin108]

Evidence for resurrection:
- Eyewitness testimony
- Empty tomb

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Missing persons
- Photos of UFO's
- Video of UFO's

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Photos of Big Foot
- Video of Big Foot


Considering the fact that the resurrection has about as much evidence as alien abduction and Big Foot, is one who believes in the resurrection obligated for the sake of consistency to also believe in alien abduction and Big Foot?

liamconnor's main defense for the resurrection seems to be "why would Paul lie?" To liam I ask why would these people lie?

[Justin108]

I was not aware we had hundreds of people claiming to be on the same alien ship and returning to us with congruent testimony.

How would they know whether they were on the same ship? As for congruence, the witnesses often describe similar details. A bright light in the middle of the night, waking up to several humanoid beings looking down on them, etc. Often the description of these beings are similar as well.

I'm puzzled that you demand such details from these witnesses though. What details did the witnesses of Jesus provide? All we know of the witnesses is that there were supposedly 500 of them and that Jesus appeared before them. That's it. We have no more details. So why is it you expect more details from the abductees when you are content with so few details from Jesus' witnesses?

What I have done is pointed out that the parallels you have selected are not the same.

I see no significant difference. Can you perhaps summarize the key difference between witnessing Jesus and witnessing/experiencing alien abduction? A more direct comparison I mentioned as well were sightings of Hitler and Elvis after their deaths. Like Jesus, they died and, like Jesus, many claimed to have seen them post death. Why accept Jesus' witnesses but doubt Hitler and Elvis sightings?

You have reduced all parallels to a common denominator: I, Justin, don't believe them.

The common denominator is that they are all based largely on eye witness testimony. Or do you deny this fact?

You also put yourself in a potentially awkward situation with your examples--for I have no a priori repugnance towards aliens, hostile or otherwise, nor towards large furry bi-peds hitherto unknown.

What's your point?

If both gained enough support, I simply have to conclude that 'we are not alone' and that scientists have discovered a new species, and (God forbid) the zoo a new member.

That's my point. You say "if they both gained enough support", implying that you agree eye witness testimony is not enough support. If eye witness testimony was enough, you would be a believer in both alien abduction as well as Big Foot. If eye witness testimony is not enough for alien abduction and Big Foot, why is it enough for Jesus?

I have looked for testimonies similar to the testimony of 1 Cor. 15. I have found none, but I did not look very hard.

1 Cor. 15 is Paul telling us that there are witnesses. That's all 1 Cor. 15 tells us. All you would need for a testimony to be similar to 1 Cor. 15 is someone telling you "there were alien abduction reports". Well here I am, filling Paul's role as the one telling you there were alien abduction reports. Are there any other similarities you need? What exactly is in 1 Cor. 15 that stands out to you as remarkable? What does 1 Cor. 15 have that alien abduction testimonies lack?

Historians regard 'possibility' as the lowest criterion to be met: it furnishes the potential to move forward, not to stop satisfied. Your logic would support the following: It is a possibility that any given dog may have eaten any boy's homework--since it is possible, no teacher can scold a boy for forgetting his homework. Indeed, your logic, if applied indiscriminately, would mean that any historical theory which was possible was to be accepted on those grounds--i.e., a theory that Caesar was not assassinated is just as good as one in which he was, because both are 'possible'.

Of course, you probably are not applying this historical principle indiscriminately: you probably agree that mere 'possibility' is very weak....until it is posed against the supernatural. Then, mere 'possibility' reigns supreme. I do not regard this as a responsible, let alone reasonable, criterion--it is a ploy, a device calculated to dismiss the supernatural. And it is very clever. History is full of possibilities: innumerable excuses may come to the boy who forgot his homework. And as supernatural claims belong to the realm of history, there will always be a possible natural explanation (whether it meets the more astringent historical criteria is another question).

In post 2, you dismissed the notion that the witnesses of Jesus were brief. You dismissed this because, as you put it, it was not "required" by Paul's account. But what does it matter? Neither was it "required" by Paul's account that these appearances were lengthy and intricate. You seem to be assuming that these were not simply brief sightings because that fits your desired narrative better. This is nothing but confirmation bias.

I am already giving you the benefit of the doubt by not dismissing Paul as a liar, but that you then assume details that Paul never gave is pushing it. Paul said there were sightings. Nothing more, nothing less. To then assume these sightings were prolonged, detailed and intricate is simply not supported.

To dismiss Big Foot sightings as "surely brief" while assuming Jesus sightings were "surely prolonged" are biased, unjustified assumptions.

What would it take for you to believe in Big Foot? Now apply that same degree of antecedent skepticism to the followers of Jesus, and I think you will have a better situation.

That is exactly what I am asking you.

What would it take for you to believe Jesus came back from the dead?
- Eye witness testimony.

What would it take for you to believe in alien abduction and Big Foot?
- A hell of a lot more than eye witness testimony.

How do you account for the fact that I do not label E.P. Sanders, who is a naturalist, as a hyperskeptic?

What does E.P Sanders believe regarding the resurrection? How does he explain it? And why are you not satisfied with his explanation?

What do you mean by "we doubt the testimony...."? Do you mean Peter, James, John + some five hundred more all were lying? They consciously knew Jesus was cold in his grave (or ripped apart by feral dogs)?

Did I say they were lying? I doubt their testimony but I have no idea what the motives behind their testimony were; whether they sincerely believed it or not. What do you suppose were the motives behind alien abduction testimonies and Big Foot sightings? Were they all liars? Were they all hallucinating? The notion that hundreds of people would lie or hallucinate seems absurd to you when it comes to Jesus, so I am eager to hear what explanation you can provide for the testimonies of alien abductions, Big Foot, etc.

Or do you not have a concrete natural explanation, you just kind of 'doubt the whole thing' without defining what 'the whole thing is''?

I have repeatedly asked you this in several other threads. Are you of the opinion that in order to doubt a given explanation, one must first be able to provide a substitute explanation?

That would be the attitude of a hyperskeptic. Hyperskeptics begin with their disbelief in the resurrection; they then move backward disbelieving in anything that might support it.

That would be the attitude of a hyperskeptic. Hyperskeptics begin with their disbelief in alien abductions; they then move backward disbelieving in anything that might support it.

The resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and as such, requires extraordinary support. Excuse me for not classifying eye witness testimony and an empty tomb as "extraordinary support". But then, neither do you in the case of alien abduction.

They do not feel as if they need provide any positive explanation (Jesus survived the crucifixion; wrong tomb) for the end conclusion was held from the very beginning.

Again I ask, are you of the opinion that in order to doubt a given explanation, one must first be able to provide a substitute explanation?

A skeptic starts with the data and moves forward. You will notice, when posed with the possibilities of Big Foot or UFO/abductions, I didn't start with how ridiculous all these things were. I began by asking for specific testimonies: that is, for the data.

In what way was the data for alien abduction insufficient?

It is a legitimate question to ask of the nature of these encounters; but not in isolation of the result: their belief that he was bodily raised.

As mentioned before, there are people who claimed to have seen Elvis after his death, and as a result, they believed he was still alive. The same is true for Hitler. Some people are content with a brief encounter in order to believe a person who died is still alive.

I thus require a plausible explanation for this new belief of theirs.

Gullibility. And before you call me a hyper skeptic again, I want you to explain why brief sightings of Elvis and Hitler was enough to believe they were still alive? What plausible explanation can you provide for their beliefs?

For now I am going to scorn the ad hoc assumptions that are blatant here, and the ones that are latent.

What assumptions did I make? I am merely pointing out possibilities. Notice my use of the words "may have".

And while you accuse me of making blatant assumptions, did you not make blatant assumptions when you claimed that all Big Foot sightings were probably just brief sightings of some bipedal creature from behind a tree? Is this not a blatant assumption?

The notion that Paul left for a prepared trip to Damascus, a journey which just happens to look like the Sahara desert, without food and water, is ridiculous.

I never said he didn't have food or water. You don't have to be on the brink of starvation in order to hallucinate. And having water doesn't make you immune to dehydration. Paul would likely have rationed his water consumption, and paired with the heat, he could have been dehydrated nonetheless. I never suggested he was dehydrated to the brink of death, merely that his hydration level was sub-optimal.

Given what I know about 1st c. Judaism, the 500 did not have an a priori hope that Jesus was going to be raised from the dead any time before the general resurrection.

I would be careful how you phrase that. It's one thing to say that you doubt that they would have had hope in the resurrection, but to outright say they did not have hope is a claim to knowledge you could not possibly have.

Such a notion would have been alien to them. All the literature confirms that this was a surprise.

Religions change and develop all the time. Many scholars believe that Judaism developed from a once polytheistic religion into monotheism. Such a development into believing in a resurrection of the Son of God is not that big of a stretch.

You will note that I judged the specific context of the 500: they were 1st c. Jews. In order to judge these abductees, I would need to know a little more about them.

Actually, at the time you said, and I quote...
"How many BF/UFO cases do we find that the eyewitnesses were skeptical of the very existence of such entities? The few I have read about, there was an a priori acceptance, even eagerness." (post 2)

So again I ask, why would people eagerly want to believe they were abducted by aliens?

I am confused. Are you saying that everyone who has lost a beloved one is more than not likely to believe that that loved one has been raised from the grave?

When did I say "more than not likely"? All I said is that they would be more eager to believe it, as in they would want it to be true. Earlier you suggested that Big Foot believers simply believe because they are eager to believe. I am pointing out the fact that believers in the resurrection are also eager to believe. So if their eagerness is irrelevant regarding their belief in the resurrection, then the same should apply to Big Foot sightings. The eagerness of the Big Foot witness is equally irrelevant.

Consider all the Christians today who believe miracles are possible: they should all be announcing that their beloved deceased dug themselves out of their graves, met with them and their families, and then ascended into heaven.

Rather, the Christians would believe that Jesus came back from the dead and then went up to heaven, preparing a place for their beloved deceased. A Christian would be eager to believe this because it would mean all their deceased loved ones are in heaven. Their motivation for believing in the resurrection is clear.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 11 by Justin108]

liamconnor wrote:

I was not aware we had hundreds of people claiming to be on the same alien ship and returning to us with congruent testimony.

How would they know whether they were on the same ship? As for congruence, the witnesses often describe similar details. A bright light in the middle of the night, waking up to several humanoid beings looking down on them, etc. Often the description of these beings are similar as well.

I would appreciate it if you kept to a single analogy: are we referring to 500 people saying that they were all involved in the same alien abduction, or to 500 isolated 'sightings' of a local light in the sky. Here is the parallel we are looking for:

After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, (1Co 15:6 NAS)

of whom he says

most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; (1Co 15:6 NAS).

I'm puzzled that you demand such details from these witnesses though. What details did the witnesses of Jesus provide?

Before going ahead in a fruitful manner, we'll have to agree upon the parallel you wish to focus on. Were the 500 abductees abducted "at one time" by the same alien spacecraft? Or do we have a mere scattered report from isolated people saying they saw a bright light and from this concluded they must have been abducted?

liamconnor wrote:

What I have done is pointed out that the parallels you have selected are not the same.

I see no significant difference. Can you perhaps summarize the key difference between witnessing Jesus and witnessing/experiencing alien abduction?

It is hard to without you defining the data of the abductees.

Till then, I will hazard a guess at the difference between us: my guess is, you regard the disciples of Jesus to be idiots who, without the slightest hesitancy or doubt, will conclude from, say, a shooting star, or a man walking ahead of them and then fading into the horizon, that their former master had been bodily raised from the grave, and that they had no problem using the language "He appeared to me".

I am not so glib and flippant. The 'cause' must fit the 'effects'. The effects are the belief that Jesus was bodily raised from death prior to his assumption. I want causes that could plausibly lead to this uniform testimony.

Now, of course, if the belief were not that Jesus was first bodily raised from the dead before assumed into heaven, but that upon his death his spirit immediately ascended into heaven..well, this belief has numerous parallels. Caesar Augustus, for instance (or was it Julius?). And this belief would certainly NOT have sparked a separate religious movement, any more than Elijah's departure or Enoch's did.

A more direct comparison I mentioned as well were sightings of Hitler and Elvis after their deaths.

Actual, this is less a direct comparison, as both Elvis and Hitler are widely imitated. To make it a better parallel, we would need close associates of either testifying that shortly after the death of, say Elvis, they had encounters with Elvis that convinced them he was bodily raised from the dead (i.e., not an apparition).

liamconnor wrote:

You have reduced all parallels to a common denominator: I, Justin, don't believe them.

The common denominator is that they are all based largely on eye witness testimony. Or do you deny this fact?

Hmm. Fair enough. But this only brings us back to the nature of the eyewitnesses. Again, define the data of the abduction.

liamconnor wrote:

You also put yourself in a potentially awkward situation with your examples--for I have no a priori repugnance towards aliens, hostile or otherwise, nor towards large furry bi-peds hitherto unknown.

What's your point?

What do you gain by presenting a hypothetical situation in which I say, okay, based on that hypothetical situation, I would conclude their are aliens, or there is another species hitherto unknown?


What's your point?

liamconnor wrote:

If both gained enough support, I simply have to conclude that 'we are not alone' and that scientists have discovered a new species, and (God forbid) the zoo a new member.

That's my point. You say "if they both gained enough support", implying that you agree eye witness testimony is not enough support.

See above.

liamconnor wrote:

I have looked for testimonies similar to the testimony of 1 Cor. 15. I have found none, but I did not look very hard.

1 Cor. 15 is Paul telling us that there are witnesses. That's all 1 Cor. 15 tells us. All you would need for a testimony to be similar to 1 Cor. 15 is someone telling you "there were alien abduction reports".

Good grief no! History is far more complex than that!

Again, I need to know more about your parallel (alien abduction works better); for now:

1 Cor. 15 tells me that

1) A JEW had an experience which led him to believe Jesus was bodily raised from the grave.

2) Then 11 JEWS had similar experiences.

3) Then 500 JEWS all had the same experience ('at one time') which led to the same conclusion,

4) Then a JEW who was embarrassed by his brother's antics during his life, had the same experience.

5) Then an indefinite number of people, but more than eleven (apostle = the eleven + others) also all had experiences leading them to the same conclusion.

That is five separate occasions, overlapping in participants, all leading to the same conclusion--Jesus was bodily raised from the grave.

And by captilizing JEW, I obviously hint at the cultural complexities of this ethnicity.

In post 2, you dismissed the notion that the witnesses of Jesus were brief. You dismissed this because, as you put it, it was not "required" by Paul's account. But what does it matter? Neither was it "required" by Paul's account that these appearances were lengthy and intricate.

Mentioned above, so I apologize for the redundancy (and, length). yes, I realize a hyperskeptic will find it plausible to conclude that anything, ANYTHING at all (i.e., a pigeon in the presence of others landing on Peter's shoulder) will convince these hundred JEWS that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.

Thus to a hyperskeptic, following would be a perfectly plausible sequence resulting in 1 Cor. 15:

1) Peter was alone mourning over the loss of Jesus, in anguish over his betrayal. It was a misty morn. There was a rainbow; he thought of Genesis. From this he concluded Jesus was bodily raised from the grave. He ran to tell the other ten. Without the slightest doubt (which we find in the gospel accounts) they all believed since, being dumb peasants, this was obviously the most natural thing to conclude from a rainbow.

2) As they were celebrating, a butterfly landed on John's nose. He swept it away, but it came back to the same nose! He tried again, but it came back. A third time, the same thing. Peter pointed out that his encounter (he has inexplicably transitioned from talk of a 'rainbow' to seeing Jesus in the flesh) occurred three days after Jesus' execution. All twelve are now elated at the evidence that Jesus is bodily raised from the dead.

3) News of this spread to other disciples, not all terribly convinced. At some point, Five hundred were gathered together in the countryside, still a bit nervous over their reputation with Jesus in light of the authorities. A pigeon, in one fell (or foul...or fowl) swoop managed to crap on seven (a biblical number) heads sequentially. Many saw this; they told the others. Someone suggested this was proof of what the eleven had said. Everyone agreed. Jesus was clearly bodily raised from the dead.

4) James, who was never a fan of his rather erratic and weird brother, is at home comforting his mother. He takes a breath, walking outside. A wagon pulls by with wood, and two sticks fall on the ground in what looks like a cross. James rushes in to tell his mother that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.

All of these men henceforth talk not of butterflies and rainbows, but of Jesus appearing to them.

(I am too tired to come up with an explanation for Paul, the most hostile of the movement).

liamconnor wrote:

How do you account for the fact that I do not label E.P. Sanders, who is a naturalist, as a hyperskeptic?

What does E.P Sanders believe regarding the resurrection? How does he explain it? And why are you not satisfied with his explanation?

As far as I can tell, he doesn't explain it. It remains a mystery. He believes the disciples did have experiences which led them to the conclusion Jesus was raised from the dead.

Here from Sanders:

"To many, Paul's evidence seems most suggestive. He does not distinguish the Lord's appearance to him from that of the other appearances in kind (italics original). If he had a vision, maybe they also had visions. But then why does Paul insist that he was a 'spiritual body'? He could have said 'spirit'.

That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know."

Now those are not the words of a hyperskeptic. I owe an incalculable debt to the man.

liamconnor wrote:
What do you mean by "we doubt the testimony...."? Do you mean Peter, James, John + some five hundred more all were lying? They consciously knew Jesus was cold in his grave (or ripped apart by feral dogs)?

Did I say they were lying? I doubt their testimony but I have no idea what the motives behind their testimony were; whether they sincerely believed it or not. What do you suppose were the motives behind alien abduction testimonies and Big Foot sightings?

I believe my quote asked a question.

As for your hesitancy to settle on a theory, I simply regard it as an apologetic device: don't defend anything, that is too difficult.

As for the parallels, see above. Find me a specific case for either; for I am not defending independent claims about Elvis and Hitler and BF and aliens. I have zeroed in on one.

liamconnor wrote:

Or do you not have a concrete natural explanation, you just kind of 'doubt the whole thing' without defining what 'the whole thing is''?

I have repeatedly asked you this in several other threads. Are you of the opinion that in order to doubt a given explanation, one must first be able to provide a substitute explanation?

I explained this in another thread, but perhaps it was not to you. I believe that doubts should be of discreet propositions and should be reasonable. "I doubt the whole damn thing" without any specifications is not reasonable. "I doubt the 500 existed, and even if they did exist, I doubt they were telling the truth; or if they actually believed it, I doubt they actually saw Jesus" is not, to me, worthy of a response. "I doubt Paul was telling the truth" is not reasonable unless one can demonstrate, based on the evidence, not only the plausibility but probability that Paul would lie about 1 Cor. 15.

liamconnor wrote:

That would be the attitude of a hyperskeptic. Hyperskeptics begin with their disbelief in the resurrection; they then move backward disbelieving in anything that might support it.

That would be the attitude of a hyperskeptic. Hyperskeptics begin with their disbelief in alien abductions; they then move backward disbelieving in anything that might support it.

Sir. I have asked you for more information on your supposed abductions. You didn't give me historical names. You didn't give me anything than a hypothetical testimony. 1 Cor. 15 is not a hypothetical testimony. It actually happened. Sure, testimonies of alien abductions have occurred. Present me a case for a specific one.

The resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and as such, requires extraordinary support.

Does "extraordinary support" = support that, intrinsically, could never be supplied?



Okay. I simply don't have the energy to go on reading your lengthy (but good!) response.


Can we simply continue with the above?

And let me say I have very much enjoyed this specific exchange. One of the more even-handed and sober-minded exchanges I have had in a long time on this forum.

[Justin108]

Before going ahead in a fruitful manner, we'll have to agree upon the parallel you wish to focus on. Were the 500 abductees abducted "at one time" by the same alien spacecraft? Or do we have a mere scattered report from isolated people saying they saw a bright light and from this concluded they must have been abducted?

Are you deliberately distorting the abduction accounts? They report far more than just bright lights, which I already specified. Bright light, humanoid beings... some go as far as to report looking out of the spacecraft windows. Some have gone missing over long periods of time.

That said, these are indeed separated incidents. There are mass UFO sightings, but the abduction accounts to my knowledge are separate incidents. Is that the part that convinced you? The fact that these sightings happened at the same time? If they were individual claims, would you have dismissed the resurrection story?

Till then, I will hazard a guess at the difference between us: my guess is, you regard the disciples of Jesus to be idiots who...

Did I say that? Do you consider supposed abductees as a bunch of idiots?

I am not so glib and flippant. The 'cause' must fit the 'effects'.

Does this describe your experience with humanity? Does the cause always fit the effect? I have heard so many supernatural claims where the 'cause' was something utterly mundane. We have people claiming ghost photos from dust particles, poltergeists from noisy pipes. There are people who believe we are being ruled by a race of reptilian shape-shifters and their support for this are video glitches were people's eyes momentarily distort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHa9uHQltW8

Does the cause fit the effect? Or are people irrational at times?

A more direct comparison I mentioned as well were sightings of Hitler and Elvis after their deaths.

Actual, this is less a direct comparison, as both Elvis and Hitler are widely imitated.

Hitler? Widely imitated?

The common denominator is that they are all based largely on eye witness testimony. Or do you deny this fact?

Hmm. Fair enough. But this only brings us back to the nature of the eyewitnesses. Again, define the data of the abduction.

Several people on separate occasions, claim to have been abducted. The experiences they report are typically bright lights, humanoid beings looking down at them and unexplained lapses of time. Already we have more detail than "Jesus appeared before 500 people"

What do you gain by presenting a hypothetical situation in which I say, okay, based on that hypothetical situation, I would conclude their are aliens, or there is another species hitherto unknown?


What's your point?

My point is I am fairly certain of your skepticism regarding alien abductions. My point is your skepticism towards alien abduction is a double standard. If you instead told me you believe in alien abduction, my point would be moot. But so far you have, as expected, expressed skepticism regarding alien abduction.

And by captilizing JEW, I obviously hint at the cultural complexities of this ethnicity.

Prior to the first UFO sightings, the notion of alien abductions were unheard of. Then a shift occurred, and people started to believe in alien abductions.

Prior to the resurrection accounts, the notion of a resurrection was unheard of. The a shift occurred, and people started to believe in a resurrection. Claiming Jews would never believe this is nothing but speculation.

In post 2, you dismissed the notion that the witnesses of Jesus were brief. You dismissed this because, as you put it, it was not "required" by Paul's account. But what does it matter? Neither was it "required" by Paul's account that these appearances were lengthy and intricate.

Mentioned above, so I apologize for the redundancy (and, length). yes, I realize a hyperskeptic will find it plausible to conclude that anything, ANYTHING at all (i.e., a pigeon in the presence of others landing on Peter's shoulder) will convince these hundred JEWS that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.

Thus to a hyperskeptic, following would be a perfectly plausible sequence resulting in 1 Cor. 15:

1) Peter was alone mourning over the loss of Jesus, in anguish over his betrayal. It was a misty morn. There was a rainbow; he thought of Genesis. From this he concluded Jesus was bodily raised from the grave. He ran to tell the other ten. Without the slightest doubt (which we find in the gospel accounts) they all believed since, being dumb peasants, this was obviously the most natural thing to conclude from a rainbow.

2) As they were celebrating, a butterfly landed on John's nose. He swept it away, but it came back to the same nose! He tried again, but it came back. A third time, the same thing. Peter pointed out that his encounter (he has inexplicably transitioned from talk of a 'rainbow' to seeing Jesus in the flesh) occurred three days after Jesus' execution. All twelve are now elated at the evidence that Jesus is bodily raised from the dead.

3) News of this spread to other disciples, not all terribly convinced. At some point, Five hundred were gathered together in the countryside, still a bit nervous over their reputation with Jesus in light of the authorities. A pigeon, in one fell (or foul...or fowl) swoop managed to crap on seven (a biblical number) heads sequentially. Many saw this; they told the others. Someone suggested this was proof of what the eleven had said. Everyone agreed. Jesus was clearly bodily raised from the dead.

4) James, who was never a fan of his rather erratic and weird brother, is at home comforting his mother. He takes a breath, walking outside. A wagon pulls by with wood, and two sticks fall on the ground in what looks like a cross. James rushes in to tell his mother that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.

All of these men henceforth talk not of butterflies and rainbows, but of Jesus appearing to them.

(I am too tired to come up with an explanation for Paul, the most hostile of the movement).

Your ridiculous substitute explanations aside, the fact remains it was not "required" by Paul's account that these appearances were lengthy and intricate.

What does E.P Sanders believe regarding the resurrection? How does he explain it? And why are you not satisfied with his explanation?

As far as I can tell, he doesn't explain it. It remains a mystery. He believes the disciples did have experiences which led them to the conclusion Jesus was raised from the dead.

You are content with Sander's lack of a substitute explanation, yet you demand from us an explain of what happened to Jesus if not the resurrection?

"To many, Paul's evidence seems most suggestive. He does not distinguish the Lord's appearance to him from that of the other appearances in kind (italics original). If he had a vision, maybe they also had visions. But then why does Paul insist that he was a 'spiritual body'? He could have said 'spirit'.

That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know."

Now those are not the words of a hyperskeptic. I owe an incalculable debt to the man.

When we fail to provide a substitute explanation for what happened to Jesus, then you complain about our lack of an explanation, but when we do give an explanation (Paul was lying, Jesus never died, etc.), you call us hyper skeptics. What would satisfy you?

As for your hesitancy to settle on a theory, I simply regard it as an apologetic device: don't defend anything, that is too difficult.

You didn't seem to mind when Sanders failed to come up with a theory. What is wrong with admitting that we simply do not know what happened?

I have repeatedly asked you this in several other threads. Are you of the opinion that in order to doubt a given explanation, one must first be able to provide a substitute explanation?

I explained this in another thread, but perhaps it was not to you. I believe that doubts should be of discreet propositions and should be reasonable. "I doubt the whole damn thing" without any specifications is not reasonable.

I doubt that Jesus was resurrected. Is that not specific enough?

"I doubt the 500 existed"

If I was forced at gun point to account for the supposed 500, yes I would doubt that they existed since their existence rests solely on Paul's claim that they existed.

"I doubt Paul was telling the truth" is not reasonable unless one can demonstrate, based on the evidence, not only the plausibility but probability that Paul would lie about 1 Cor. 15.

Can you demonstrate that the resurrection was not only plausible but probable?

Why is it harder for you to believe that a man lied than it is for you to believe that someone came back from the dead? This to me is utterly baffling.

Anyway, you failed to answer my question so I'll repeat it once more: are you of the opinion that in order to doubt a given explanation, one must first be able to provide a substitute explanation? Yes or no?

The resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and as such, requires extraordinary support.

Does "extraordinary support" = support that, intrinsically, could never be supplied?

The only reason extraordinary support could not be supplied is if extraordinary support did not exist. If that is the case, then I am sorry to say there is insufficient evidence to support your extraordinary claim.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 13 by Justin108]

liamconnor wrote:

Quote:
In post 2, you dismissed the notion that the witnesses of Jesus were brief. You dismissed this because, as you put it, it was not "required" by Paul's account. But what does it matter? Neither was it "required" by Paul's account that these appearances were lengthy and intricate.


Mentioned above, so I apologize for the redundancy (and, length). yes, I realize a hyperskeptic will find it plausible to conclude that anything, ANYTHING at all (i.e., a pigeon in the presence of others landing on Peter's shoulder) will convince these hundred JEWS that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.

Thus to a hyperskeptic, following would be a perfectly plausible sequence resulting in 1 Cor. 15:

1) Peter was alone mourning over the loss of Jesus, in anguish over his betrayal. It was a misty morn. There was a rainbow; he thought of Genesis. From this he concluded Jesus was bodily raised from the grave. He ran to tell the other ten. Without the slightest doubt (which we find in the gospel accounts) they all believed since, being dumb peasants, this was obviously the most natural thing to conclude from a rainbow.

2) As they were celebrating, a butterfly landed on John's nose. He swept it away, but it came back to the same nose! He tried again, but it came back. A third time, the same thing. Peter pointed out that his encounter (he has inexplicably transitioned from talk of a 'rainbow' to seeing Jesus in the flesh) occurred three days after Jesus' execution. All twelve are now elated at the evidence that Jesus is bodily raised from the dead.

3) News of this spread to other disciples, not all terribly convinced. At some point, Five hundred were gathered together in the countryside, still a bit nervous over their reputation with Jesus in light of the authorities. A pigeon, in one fell (or foul...or fowl) swoop managed to crap on seven (a biblical number) heads sequentially. Many saw this; they told the others. Someone suggested this was proof of what the eleven had said. Everyone agreed. Jesus was clearly bodily raised from the dead.

4) James, who was never a fan of his rather erratic and weird brother, is at home comforting his mother. He takes a breath, walking outside. A wagon pulls by with wood, and two sticks fall on the ground in what looks like a cross. James rushes in to tell his mother that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.

All of these men henceforth talk not of butterflies and rainbows, but of Jesus appearing to them.

(I am too tired to come up with an explanation for Paul, the most hostile of the movement).

Your ridiculous substitute explanations aside, the fact remains it was not "required" by Paul's account that these appearances were lengthy and intricate.

So we both are agreed that the above episodes would NOT lead anyone to conclude that their friend and teacher had been bodily raised from the grave. Thus you agree that at least some causes do not match the effect and should not be taken seriously?

So then, I seek another cause, whose effects include the following: some 500 people, not (like your abductees) isolated from each other, came to believe not only that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, but also, that he appeared to all 500 at the same time. EAch one can say, "On May 18th, about morning time, I, James, Apollos, Thomas, John, Zebadaia etc. etc. etc. all saw Jesus bodily raised from the the dead standing on a rock."

Now, what would it take for you and, say, twenty associates, to believe that a recently departed friend had come back from the dead, not as a spirit, but with a body....and to believe that he stood in the same room with all of you together at the same time? Warm fuzzy feelings? A bright light? Mere hope?

Thus your parallels fail. Hitler (and yes, everyone knows the funny mustache because it shows up on cartoons and movies...if you want to complain tht it is not WIDELY imitated, fine. But his face is pretty iconic) and Elvis are reported to be seen by people that never knew him; the identity of both are determined solely on their unique appearance, which anyone can imitate. It is highly doubtful that Jesus was famous for his sideburns.

So far the abduction cases you have alluded to were all isolated occurrences. I do not doubt that each one had an experience which led him to believe he was the victim of aliens.

But what it takes to convince a single person of such (a bright light; loss of consciousness; fuzzy memories of oval heads with big dark eyes; gaps in memories) is going to be less stringent than what it will take to get 500 people believe they were all on board the same ship with the same extra-terrestrial beings. That will require congruent and shared memories: Jim remembers the alien in front of him and Jane to his right; Jane remember the alien in front of her and Jim to her left.

[Justin108]

So we both are agreed that the above episodes would NOT lead anyone to conclude that their friend and teacher had been bodily raised from the grave.

It might, but yes, not likely. The difference, of course, is that Jesus wasn't just a loved one to these people. They believed him to be the son of God. And as such, was capable of miracles. If I believed in miracles (which these people did) and I believe my teacher was the son of God (which these people did), I would be much more likely to believe that maybe he came back from the dead.

Thus you agree that at least some causes do not match the effect and should not be taken seriously?

Yes. But I have come across many examples of causes not matching the effects when it comes to belief, so this does not surprise me.

Now, what would it take for you and, say, twenty associates, to believe that a recently departed friend had come back from the dead, not as a spirit, but with a body....and to believe that he stood in the same room with all of you together at the same time? Warm fuzzy feelings? A bright light? Mere hope?

Would would it take me? Seeing it first hand. What would it take some other people? Much less. Some people are gullible, superstitious and easily swayed. Again... there are people, today, that believe government officials and politicians are secretly lizard people.

So far the abduction cases you have alluded to were all isolated occurrences.

Does that make a difference? Let's not forget, the 500 number was an isolated claim from Paul. So far I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming these 500 even existed. In reality, their existence rests on whether or not Paul was telling the truth. But to you, the notion that a man lied is absurd whereas the notion that a man came back from the dead is perfectly believable.

But what it takes to convince a single person of such (a bright light; loss of consciousness; fuzzy memories of oval heads with big dark eyes; gaps in memories) is going to be less stringent than what it will take to get 500 people believe they were all on board the same ship with the same extra-terrestrial beings. That will require congruent and shared memories

"...innocent people can be led to falsely remember having committed crimes as severe as assault with a weapon.

The new study proves for the first time what psychologists have long suspected: that manipulative questioning tactics used by police can induce false memories — and produce false confessions."

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/20 ... -find.html

This is what's known as planting false memories. The link above demonstrates an example of the phenomenon. If these 500 people (assuming they existed) discussed whatever it is they experienced, their testimonies among themselves will start to congrue. Because of this, I have heard, it has become protocol for police to separate witnesses prior to testimony.

[Mithrae]

Till then, I will hazard a guess at the difference between us: my guess is, you regard the disciples of Jesus to be idiots who, without the slightest hesitancy or doubt, will conclude from, say, a shooting star, or a man walking ahead of them and then fading into the horizon, that their former master had been bodily raised from the grave, and that they had no problem using the language "He appeared to me".

I am not so glib and flippant. The 'cause' must fit the 'effects'. The effects are the belief that Jesus was bodily raised from death prior to his assumption. I want causes that could plausibly lead to this uniform testimony.

Now, of course, if the belief were not that Jesus was first bodily raised from the dead before assumed into heaven, but that upon his death his spirit immediately ascended into heaven..well, this belief has numerous parallels. Caesar Augustus, for instance (or was it Julius?). And this belief would certainly NOT have sparked a separate religious movement, any more than Elijah's departure or Enoch's did.

You have a slight problem here, it seems. Here is the only account which Paul himself provided of his own conversion experience:

• Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years...

There is nothing in that passage which suggests a bodily resurrection; if anything, that phrase which avoids saying "reveal his son to me" would be utterly incongruent if Paul had actually seen the living body of a man previous crucified! The other account of Paul's conversion experience is provided by his traveling companion Luke:

• Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?â€�
  5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?�
  Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.�
  6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?�
  Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�
  7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.

Again, there is no hint here of a bodily appearance by Jesus: Quite the opposite, it is clearly stated that nothing was seen by the others who were present, though they heard something.

You have previously quoted that Paul "does not distinguish the Lord's appearance to him from that of the other appearances in kind (italics original)," and if that is the case, the most likely conclusion would be that Paul believed that all these others had mere visions of Christ, as he did. And in fact in that very chapter, Paul explicitly states that "what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be" and "“The first man Adam became a living being.� The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor. 15:37 & 45).

The only recourse for the Christian apologist, familiar with the gospel stories written decades after Paul's epistle, is the hope that he does implicitly distinguish his vision from the other appearances by stating that his vision was "as by one born out of due time."


(It's also worth noting that Luke - who again was probably a companion of Paul - does not mention these supposed 500 witnesses, despite going to greater lengths than any other evangelist to describe the "many infallible proofs" of Jesus' resurrection. In fact, he explicitly states that the number of disciples gathered with the Twelve and Jesus family was only around 120 (Acts 1:15), so imagining more than four times that number elsewhere which Luke unaccountably overlooked is questionable to say the least! There's a very real possibility that Luke was entirely unfamiliar with this supposed 'early Christian creed'/Pauline tradition, or at least that particular part of it.)

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 15 by Justin108]

liamconnor wrote:

So we both are agreed that the above episodes would NOT lead anyone to conclude that their friend and teacher had been bodily raised from the grave.

It might, but yes, not likely. The difference, of course, is that Jesus wasn't just a loved one to these people. They believed him to be the son of God. And as such, was capable of miracles. If I believed in miracles (which these people did) and I believe my teacher was the son of God (which these people did), I would be much more likely to believe that maybe he came back from the dead.

You will need to define "Son of God". The phrase appears throughout Jewish literature in connection with someone specially anointed by God. It had no trinitarian overtones. This includes the gospels until after the resurrection. When Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ the son of the living God he is saying that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah: quite human, though blessed by God to wrought miracles.

liamconnor wrote:

Thus you agree that at least some causes do not match the effect and should not be taken seriously?

Yes. But I have come across many examples of causes not matching the effects when it comes to belief, so this does not surprise me.

I'm not sure if you have a point here or are just being wishy-washy. Is your position:

1) The causes above are ridiculous and should not be taken seriously regardless of whether we can find other potential causes which are not supernatural?

2) The causes above are ridiculous. However, if the only two options were between them and a divine act, they are less ridiculous than a divine act?

3) The causes are ridiculous. But they very well could be the causes and should be taken as seriously as any other cause?

liamconnor wrote:
Now, what would it take for you and, say, twenty associates, to believe that a recently departed friend had come back from the dead, not as a spirit, but with a body....and to believe that he stood in the same room with all of you together at the same time? Warm fuzzy feelings? A bright light? Mere hope?

Would would it take me? Seeing it first hand. What would it take some other people? Much less. Some people are gullible, superstitious and easily swayed. Again... there are people, today, that believe government officials and politicians are secretly lizard people.

Seeing it first hand....kind of like all the disciples in the gospels and Paul? Sounds like you guys agree.

Some other people...much less? Good grief I would very much like to know how you arrived so confidently at this.

Believing government people are really lizards is quite different than believing someone came back from the dead and appeared to you and 499 other people all at once. The conditions for the one are far less demanding than the second.

liamconnor wrote:

So far the abduction cases you have alluded to were all isolated occurrences.

Does that make a difference? Let's not forget, the 500 number was an isolated claim from Paul.

I made this clear, several times. By isolated I mean that the events were separated from each other in time and space. The 500 was not separated from each other in time and space. It happened at the same time.

As for being isolated in Paul, you are now jumping to a different argument.

liamconnor wrote:

But what it takes to convince a single person of such (a bright light; loss of consciousness; fuzzy memories of oval heads with big dark eyes; gaps in memories) is going to be less stringent than what it will take to get 500 people believe they were all on board the same ship with the same extra-terrestrial beings. That will require congruent and shared memories

"...innocent people can be led to falsely remember having committed crimes as severe as assault with a weapon.

The new study proves for the first time what psychologists have long suspected: that manipulative questioning tactics used by police can induce false memories — and produce false confessions."

False parallel. When manipulative questioning tactics gets five-hundred people to believe that they were all, hand in hand, part of the same crime, then we have something close to a parallel.

This is what's known as planting false memories. The link above demonstrates an example of the phenomenon. If these 500 people (assuming they existed) discussed whatever it is they experienced, their testimonies among themselves will start to congrue.

A: This presupposes an experience for each one to share. We have seen that pigeon poop and butterflies and warm-fuzzy feelings are pathetic attempts to explain the problem away. So, what experiences will get 500 people to believe not only that they saw the risen Jesus, but saw him together. The simplest answer, the one least guilty of ad hoc 'maybe's' is, they all saw Jesus. This of course does not by itself consign one to the Christian explanation. There is a natural alternative....

B: "their testimonies will start to congrue". Said with a lot of confidence! I find it equally likely that the highly incongruent stories will cast doubt on whether the experience in fact happened. Suppose I were among friends bereaving over 'dear Jim'. I look up from my anguish and 'see' dear Jim in the distance waving at me with a smile. I turn to Sam and say 'look! My God he's alive'. And then Sam says, "By golly youre right, there he is sitting under the palm tree...."

"Palm tree?" I say. "No, no, look, over there by the rock...".

At any rate, that 500 people are going to convince each other that they had all encountered the risen Jesus from anything other than an experience that was inherently congruent and simultaneous is simply ridiculous to me.

If these 500 people (assuming they existed)

Good grief. I hope you are not retreating into hyperskepticism. This exchange has been so refreshing.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

You have a slight problem here, it seems. Here is the only account which Paul himself provided of his own conversion experience:
Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years...


There is nothing in that passage which suggests a bodily resurrection;

1) Greek prepositions are far more difficult than English. The phrase is �ν �μοί. A simple phrase study will show various meanings, where 'to me' is not uncommon. Hence ESV has 'to me' in Gal 1.16.

2) Paul is a Jew. The term he uses for resurrection is ἀναστάσis. In both Jewish parlance and the gospels the term refers to 'bodily resurrection'. Study the context of this word in all of Paul's letters, as well as the context of the concept (whether the word appears or not) and the evidence is overwhelming: resurrection means 'bodily resurrection'. The burden of proof rests on those who will claim that Paul uses this term in a manner that completely abandons Jewish connotations.

3) Paul himself is aware, at times painfully aware, that his encounter with Jesus is different from that of the other apostles.

4) The question in this thread is far more than Paul's experience.

5) The Acts account is written by Luke, or at least by someone who clearly described Jesus as being 'bodily risen from a tomb'. That you cannot square Paul's conversion experience with that is irrelevant. Luke obviously thought the Jesus speaking to Paul was a Jesus that was bodily risen.

6) Your handling of the term "spirit" is utterly modern. It ignores the O.T. as well as Jewish literature. I could easily point out that Paul believes Christians will receive a 'spiritual BODY'. A more thorough going study with a Greek lexicon will show that by 'spirit' Paul means a body subordinate to God. That such subordination entails a certain 'glory' not now enjoyed is not incompatible with the fact it is still a tangible body.


7) A study of ancient bios will show that biographers had certain fish to fry and left others in the lake. Ancient historians and biographers were not required to get every single detail in. By the standards of ancient historiography, such detail mongering would have been distasteful. Luke is obviously interested in the mission to 'first the Jews, then the Gentiles'. That theme took priority. Luke is written later than Paul and cannot be used to trump Paul's account of the 500 by an argument from silence.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

You have a slight problem here, it seems. Here is the only account which Paul himself provided of his own conversion experience:
Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years...

There is nothing in that passage which suggests a bodily resurrection;

1) Greek prepositions are far more difficult than English. The phrase is �ν �μοί. A simple phrase study will show various meanings, where 'to me' is not uncommon. Hence ESV has 'to me' in Gal 1.16.

My comments are pretty much irrelevant to Justin's thread in any case. But no fewer than four times in your response to me and numerous times in response to Justin, including the comments which I responded to above, you are attempting to appeal to 1st century Greek language or 1st century Jewish culture or the like to prove your point. So I think it's worth sharing what this approach looks like when it's actually put under the microscope - even by a rank amateur such as myself.

The translations which I most commonly compare translate the verse as follows:
"reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles" ~ NASB online
"reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles" ~ NKJV online
"reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles" ~ my 1984 NIV hardcopy
"reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles" ~ more recent NIV on Biblegateway.com, which I occasionally check for convenience even though it's less reliable (see its PC insertion Jewish "leaders" in John 19:7 and elsewhere)

Instead, you have appealed to a 2008 translation which reads "reveal his son to me," yet still (here's the kicker) explicitly states in a footnote that the Greek says "in."

In justifying that decision you claim that it is "not uncommon" for the phrase to mean 'to me' - albeit without providing any examples. So assuming good faith, I looked up all 171 New Testament occurrences of the phrase "to me" (in the NKJV; there are only 162 in the ESV and even fewer in the other two versions). But far from finding that it's "not uncommon" for �ν �μοί to be translated thus, there is not a single unambiguous example of that. Overwhelmingly, �ν does not even occur in those verses: The cases where it does occur in those verses show numerous contrasts of to me vs. in something else. (See Matt 7:22, 25:36, 28:18, Luke 2:14, Acts 1:8, 1 Cor. 16:11, 2 Cor. 2:12, 12:9, Gal. 6:14, Eph. 3:3, 2 Tim. 1:18, 3:11, 4:8, Titus 1:3, Phil. 1:13, 1:16.)

There are only two even remotely possible occasions where it's translated "to me," which obviously is uncommon... but neither of those really bear out in any case. In 1 Cor. 9:15 Paul is speaking of his supposed right to material support as an apostle:
"But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me (�ν �μοί)" ~ NKJV
"But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case" ~ NASB
"But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me" ~ NIV (both versions)
And then... um...
"But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision" ~ ESV, supposedly a more reliable translation

The other example is in 1 Cor. 14:11 about speaking in tongues:
"if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks (ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι βά�βα�ος), and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me (� λαλῶν �ν �μοὶ βά�βα�ος)" ~ NKJV
"If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian [g]to me" ~ NASB (footnote reads; or in my estimation)
"If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me" ~ NIV (both versions)
"if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me" ~ ESV

In both of these cases - as the NASB suggests in the latter, and all but the NKJV imply in the former - "in me" or in my case would probably be a more precise translation; it would simply sound strange to our ears (though Paul's apostolic rights or his material support being done "to" him as in the NKJV sounds pretty strange too!).

The reason is that �ν is:
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between εἰς (G1519) and �κ (G1537))
~ Strong's Concordance

The translation of "reveal his Son to me" would be entirely at odds with this, expressing a directional concept or one of change, rather than the fixed position expressed by �ν. In particular, note that �ν is used twice in Galatians 1:16, and all those translations including the ESV state that Paul was to preach Jesus "among the Gentiles" (a relation of rest) rather than "to the Gentiles" (one of directional communication).



All of this is an entirely trivial point of course; even if it said "to me" it really wouldn't change the likelihood that (as described in Acts and implied in 1 Cor. 15:45) Paul's conversion experience was a vision of a spiritual Jesus, not a physical body. But it's a bit of a cautionary tale about anyone who insists that some sticky point of discussion must be the way they insist because of [vague unreferenced appeal to obscure linguistic or cultural specifics]. Especially when that appeal is made so frequently as seems to be the case in this thread!

Note again that
- most translations have "in me" in that verse;
- even the ESV itself has a footnote saying that the Greek has "in me";
- of 171 occurrences of "to me" in the NKJV, there are only two highly ambiguous cases in which �ν is used, and
- the word itself clearly refers to a fixed position or relation, not the directional communication of "reveal his son to me"

And yet from all this, the insistence was that

The phrase is �ν �μοί. A simple phrase study will show various meanings, where 'to me' is not uncommon. Hence ESV has 'to me' in Gal 1.16

Reader beware

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 19 by Mithrae]

My comments are pretty much irrelevant to Justin's thread in any case. But no fewer than four times in your response to me and numerous times in response to Justin, including the comments which I responded to above, you are attempting to appeal to 1st century Greek language or 1st century Jewish culture or the like to prove your point. So I think it's worth sharing what this approach looks like when it's actually put under the microscope - even by a rank amateur such as myself.

I certainly misspoke, and grossly, in the following:

Quote:

The phrase is �ν �μοί. A simple phrase study will show various meanings, where 'to me' is not uncommon. Hence ESV has 'to me' in Gal 1.16

However, I still find the linguistic argument very weak, and here is why:

First, even if we are to take the preposition as meaning "in me", that still does not over rule the insuperable difficulties facing a non-bodily interpretation.

Second: here are other occurrences (taken from various translations) where the same prepositional phrase appears in Paul's writings. Note that where 'me' appears, it is preceded by the Greek 'in'. I underline the translation.

1)And they were glorifying God because of me. (Gal 1:24 NAS)

2) But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me (1Co 9:15 KJV)

3) since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. (2Co 13:3 NIV)

4) If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. (1Co 14:11 TNIV)

All of these are the same phrase, ev emoi; all of them rather ridiculous if taken to be a mere subjective impression, i.e., "inside my own head" or "in my innermost being".

So, the linguistic maneuver from Gal 1.16's "in me" to the argument that clearly Paul had an inner revelation in mind, and not something that sprung from an objective encounter, is very, very weak.

Please note, I am not the one putting all my eggs in the Gal basket. I am pointing out the leaky bucket for what it is. Hence I have turned to other arguments.

But, as I think you pointed out, this is going far afield, since the OP is not reducible to Paul's experience, either by his own account or that in Acts.