Quote:Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time,

Name one.

(February 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm)theVOID Wrote: Paul wrote Cor before the earliest iteration of Mark was written down no?

By about 20 years, according to Christian testimony, if that is to be given any credibility. By the time Mark was written, according to Christian timelines, Paul was already in the grave.

---

(February 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time,

Name one.

Exactly.

God appeared to me and told me Islamo-Christianity is horseshit. Just ask the 1,000 brethren who saw it.

It's why hearsay is not allowed in courts of law.....except Sharia courts where apparently facts don't matter.

(February 14, 2011 at 6:57 pm)Rayaan Wrote: If the resurrection is not true, then which is more likely:

(1) the witnesses were deceived, (2) the witnesses were lying, or (3) the witnesses are made up only.

3. People who witness abnormal events are commonplace in mythology/fiction.

Besides, using part of the story in order to lend credence to another part of the story is plain absurd, it's like saying that Oz exists because 'why else would you have a yellow brick road?'.

---

(February 14, 2011 at 7:49 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(February 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm)theVOID Wrote: Paul wrote Cor before the earliest iteration of Mark was written down no?

By about 20 years, according to Christian testimony, if that is to be given any credibility. By the time Mark was written, according to Christian timelines, Paul was already in the grave.

---

That's what I had suspected, Is it well established when the oral transmission of Mark's source began? From memory Paul doesn't touch on the narrative often save referencing some passages in common, I wonder how much of that specific tradition he was aware of.

(February 14, 2011 at 8:43 pm)theVOID Wrote: That's what I had suspected, Is it well established when the oral transmission of Mark's source began? From memory Paul doesn't touch on the narrative often save referencing some passages in common, I wonder how much of that specific tradition he was aware of.

Paul references two things about "the Christ" (I don't even think he mentions Jesus by name but I could be wrong, I'll flip through his epistles again sometime soon):

1. His death and resurrection
2. The last supper "take and eat" quote.

Both concept, dying-and-rising savior and the Eucharist, both appear in pagan myths.

(February 14, 2011 at 10:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(February 14, 2011 at 8:43 pm)theVOID Wrote: That's what I had suspected, Is it well established when the oral transmission of Mark's source began? From memory Paul doesn't touch on the narrative often save referencing some passages in common, I wonder how much of that specific tradition he was aware of.

Paul references two things about "the Christ" (I don't even think he mentions Jesus by name but I could be wrong, I'll flip through his epistles again sometime soon):

1. His death and resurrection
2. The last supper "take and eat" quote.

Both concept, dying-and-rising savior and the Eucharist, both appear in pagan myths.

He mentions Jesus by name in Romans (chapter 1), but his references to his teaching are pretty sparse. I wish I could go into more detail.

(February 14, 2011 at 10:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Paul references two things about "the Christ" (I don't even think he mentions Jesus by name but I could be wrong, I'll flip through his epistles again sometime soon):

1. His death and resurrection
2. The last supper "take and eat" quote.

Both concept, dying-and-rising savior and the Eucharist, both appear in pagan myths.

You are right in the epistles Paul only mentions those two things about Jesus you describe. However the epistles were written for a very specific purpose.

(February 15, 2011 at 7:06 am)ziggystardust Wrote: You are right in the epistles Paul only mentions those two things about Jesus you describe. However the epistles were written for a very specific purpose.

True but that wasn't the original question. The original question was what Paul tells us about the historical Jesus. The answer is limited to the two points I mentioned, once where Jesus allegedly says "take and eat" at the Eucharist and the other his his death and resurrection. One explanation for this is to say Paul was just writing letters to clarify worship practices (though in contradiction to the later Matthew). Another is to say the story hadn't yet been written.

Christians are free to believe the former if they wish but they must rationalize away parts of the epistles. Paul in 1Cor 15:8 says that Jesus did not live within his lifetime. 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7 both establish the existence of early Christians who didn't believe in a flesh and blood Jesus.

Is it not possible that jesus just didnt die on the cross.

The punished often took days to die and he was only up there for about five minutes.

Who declared him dead and how qualified were they?

If someone was declared dead and then sat up, my first thought would be that the doctor made a mistake and not that a miracle has occurred.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/man-wak...21109.html

(February 15, 2011 at 10:46 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Is it not possible that jesus just didnt die on the cross.

The punished often took days to die and he was only up there for about five minutes.

Who declared him dead and how qualified were they?

The Romans also didn't allow condemned criminals a burial in a tomb. The body was left up on the cross to rot. They certainly wouldn't have allowed a lavish burial by the standards of the time (A tomb? For a condemned criminal? Really?) And with guards posted as Pilate was ordered to do by the Jewish leaders. Because Pilate was famous for taking orders from the Jewish leaders. Actually, Pilate was known for being an iron fisted brutal tyrant, imfamous even by Roman standards.