A lot has been made (certainly, in Lee's recent "hit" film) over the "500" who also appeared to Jesus after His Resurrection from the dead.  And, from the onset, I must admit that in the banal naivete of my youth, this one was "the clincher" in terms of my evangelical Christian faith.  Having been raised in evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity from age 5 or before (Mom & Dad sent sister & I to Sunday school so that they could stay home, presumably have sex, etc.) until well into high school, I did not enter the detox phase until nearly the end of my college days, and looking back on things I wasted a lot time going to Sunday morning & evening worship, plus some Wednesdays, when I could have been studying more, earning a higher grade-point, etc! 

Time & the Internet have changed things, and so, here's my take on those "500":

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  If this is not the bar for accepting a supernatural (or, paranormal) claim, then the mantra must be, "Come one, come all".  If Christian apologists want to hold-up "the 500" as being evidence of Jesus' corporeal resurrection, then I could just as well hold-up testimonial evidence in support of alien abductions, Sasquatch, etc., etc.  People have "extraordinary" experiences all the time.

2)  Paul was lying.  People did in his day just as they do it in ours.  Just look at ISIS; constant lies, all, presumably, in support of a "higher cause".  In 1st Corinthians 15, Paul was in a debate with some of the newly minted Christian followers, who were having doubts about the Resurrection of Jesus.  (Of course, if the Resurrection truly happened, one must wonder how anyone could have doubted it, or failed to have noticed it?!)  What better way to shore-up those doubts than to say that Jesus "appeared to the 500," some of whom are still around!  ("Who, though?"  Paul does not say.)

3)  Paul heard a story.  Scholars know, by any doubt, that the Resurrection appearances got embellished.  One can see this clearly by looking at the primitive account in Mark and then those in Matthew & Luke; finally, there's the Gospel of John, but after that, the Gospel of Peter, which has the most embellished accounts of any of the aforementioned.  It is completely possible that Paul heard a story of "the 500", which he then inserted into his epistle.  Of course, #2 and #3 are not mutually exclusive.

4)  The story is an interpolation.  Scholars know that Christian scribes changed the "sacred texts" over time.  For instance, the ending of the Gospel of Mark, the last chapter of the Gospel of John, the Johannine Comma, etc., are all widely accepted examples of where Christian scribes altered the New Testament over time.  It is completely plausible that a Christian scribe in the generation or two after Paul's death simply inserted the text where it was not there before; perhaps an earlier scribe had put the story into the margins and it got copied into the main text later on?

5)  The story is historical but completely natural.  Mass delusions have happened before and will happen again.  It does not necessarily take a "group hallucination" but could simply be due to the power of suggestion -- "Did you see that?  Hey, yeah, I did!  Let's go ask Catherine if she saw it!!"

6)  The story is historical and supernatural.  Okay, Jesus rose from the dead!  Is this proof of evangelical Christian fundamentalism?  Or, for that matter, any other "ism"?  Hardly.  One could appeal to the Resurrection in support of universalism, as did many of the early Church fathers, who openly believed and taught that every human being, without exception, would be redeemed!

However, as #6 is an extraordinary claim, it ought to be rejected in favor of more completely plausible naturalistic explanations, at least until evidence provides a clear and convincing case as to why #2 through #5 are fundamentally flawed.

Don't forget the rule that you don't lie in round numbers.

Can we say with certainty that Paul said those things?

(April 30, 2017 at 11:28 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Don't forget the rule that you don't lie in round numbers.

Excellent point.  Of course, people in the ancient world did not conceive of numbers as big as we do in our day.  The Romans did not go much past 1,000:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

(April 30, 2017 at 11:29 am)chimp3 Wrote: Can we say with certainty that Paul said those things?

No.  But we can say that the proto-orthodox fucks who edited the original letters wrote those things and were lying about them.

(April 30, 2017 at 11:18 am)Jehanne Wrote: A lot has been made (certainly, in Lee's recent "hit" film) over the "500" who also appeared to Jesus after His Resurrection from the dead.  And, from the onset, I must admit that in the banal naivete of my youth, this one was "the clincher" in terms of my evangelical Christian faith.  Having been raised in evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity from age 5 or before (Mom & Dad sent sister & I to Sunday school so that they could stay home, presumably have sex, etc.) until well into high school, I did not enter the detox phase until nearly the end of my college days, and looking back on things I wasted a lot time going to Sunday morning & evening worship, plus some Wednesdays, when I could have been studying more, earning a higher grade-point, etc! 

Time & the Internet have changed things, and so, here's my take on those "500":

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  If this is not the bar for accepting a supernatural (or, paranormal) claim, then the mantra must be, "Come one, come all".  If Christian apologists want to hold-up "the 500" as being evidence of Jesus' corporeal resurrection, then I could just as well hold-up testimonial evidence in support of alien abductions, Sasquatch, etc., etc.  People have "extraordinary" experiences all the time.

2)  Paul was lying.  People did in his day just as they do it in ours.  Just look at ISIS; constant lies, all, presumably, in support of a "higher cause".  In 1st Corinthians 15, Paul was in a debate with some of the newly minted Christian followers, who were having doubts about the Resurrection of Jesus.  (Of course, if the Resurrection truly happened, one must wonder how anyone could have doubted it, or failed to have noticed it?!)  What better way to shore-up those doubts than to say that Jesus "appeared to the 500," some of whom are still around!  ("Who, though?"  Paul does not say.)

3)  Paul heard a story.  Scholars know, by any doubt, that the Resurrection appearances got embellished.  One can see this clearly by looking at the primitive account in Mark and then those in Matthew & Luke; finally, there's the Gospel of John, but after that, the Gospel of Peter, which has the most embellished accounts of any of the aforementioned.  It is completely possible that Paul heard a story of "the 500", which he then inserted into his epistle.  Of course, #2 and #3 are not mutually exclusive.

4)  The story is an interpolation.  Scholars know that Christian scribes changed the "sacred texts" over time.  For instance, the ending of the Gospel of Mark, the last chapter of the Gospel of John, the Johannine Comma, etc., are all widely accepted examples of where Christian scribes altered the New Testament over time.  It is completely plausible that a Christian scribe in the generation or two after Paul's death simply inserted the text where it was not there before; perhaps an earlier scribe had put the story into the margins and it got copied into the main text later on?

5)  The story is historical but completely natural.  Mass delusions have happened before and will happen again.  It does not necessarily take a "group hallucination" but could simply be due to the power of suggestion -- "Did you see that?  Hey, yeah, I did!  Let's go ask Catherine if she saw it!!"

6)  The story is historical and supernatural.  Okay, Jesus rose from the dead!  Is this proof of evangelical Christian fundamentalism?  Or, for that matter, any other "ism"?  Hardly.  One could appeal to the Resurrection in support of universalism, as did many of the early Church fathers, who openly believed and taught that every human being, without exception, would be redeemed!

However, as #6 is an extraordinary claim, it ought to be rejected in favor of more completely plausible naturalistic explanations, at least until evidence provides a clear and convincing case as to why #2 through #5 are fundamentally flawed.

how short sighted of you.

Look at your own life and where it relates to Christianity.

You doubted something, Got nothing from God. Had no one to help you understand, you left.

Do you really truly think you are so much smarter than those who lived 2000 years ago?

I can promise you they went through the same thing, but something stopped them. either a brother in the faith or God Himself.

No one will hang around a dead religion. that is what your experienced has taught you.

That is why Christian as lasted as long as it has. It was not dead. Seeing Christ is not enough to sustain belief for a life time. it take daily reminders to establish and maintain proper belief.

Your version of Christianity did not support this so you like everyone else who needs support walks away, because they do not have what they were promised.

How many witnesses could a preacher claim for any number of 'miracles' seemingly occurring in their megachurches today?

And then consider the advance in the 'miracle' game made by Pat Robertson with his "Word of Knowledge" bullshit where the 'miracles' occur off camera (and out of state!) and good old Pat still gets the credit for their invocation !!

(April 30, 2017 at 11:18 am)Jehanne Wrote: A lot has been made (certainly, in Lee's recent "hit" film) over the "500" who also appeared to Jesus after His Resurrection from the dead.  And, from the onset, I must admit that in the banal naivete of my youth, this one was "the clincher" in terms of my evangelical Christian faith.  Having been raised in evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity from age 5 or before (Mom & Dad sent sister & I to Sunday school so that they could stay home, presumably have sex, etc.) until well into high school, I did not enter the detox phase until nearly the end of my college days, and looking back on things I wasted a lot time going to Sunday morning & evening worship, plus some Wednesdays, when I could have been studying more, earning a higher grade-point, etc! 

Time & the Internet have changed things, and so, here's my take on those "500":

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  If this is not the bar for accepting a supernatural (or, paranormal) claim, then the mantra must be, "Come one, come all".  If Christian apologists want to hold-up "the 500" as being evidence of Jesus' corporeal resurrection, then I could just as well hold-up testimonial evidence in support of alien abductions, Sasquatch, etc., etc.  People have "extraordinary" experiences all the time.

2)  Paul was lying.  People did in his day just as they do it in ours.  Just look at ISIS; constant lies, all, presumably, in support of a "higher cause".  In 1st Corinthians 15, Paul was in a debate with some of the newly minted Christian followers, who were having doubts about the Resurrection of Jesus.  (Of course, if the Resurrection truly happened, one must wonder how anyone could have doubted it, or failed to have noticed it?!)  What better way to shore-up those doubts than to say that Jesus "appeared to the 500," some of whom are still around!  ("Who, though?"  Paul does not say.)

3)  Paul heard a story.  Scholars know, by any doubt, that the Resurrection appearances got embellished.  One can see this clearly by looking at the primitive account in Mark and then those in Matthew & Luke; finally, there's the Gospel of John, but after that, the Gospel of Peter, which has the most embellished accounts of any of the aforementioned.  It is completely possible that Paul heard a story of "the 500", which he then inserted into his epistle.  Of course, #2 and #3 are not mutually exclusive.

4)  The story is an interpolation.  Scholars know that Christian scribes changed the "sacred texts" over time.  For instance, the ending of the Gospel of Mark, the last chapter of the Gospel of John, the Johannine Comma, etc., are all widely accepted examples of where Christian scribes altered the New Testament over time.  It is completely plausible that a Christian scribe in the generation or two after Paul's death simply inserted the text where it was not there before; perhaps an earlier scribe had put the story into the margins and it got copied into the main text later on?

5)  The story is historical but completely natural.  Mass delusions have happened before and will happen again.  It does not necessarily take a "group hallucination" but could simply be due to the power of suggestion -- "Did you see that?  Hey, yeah, I did!  Let's go ask Catherine if she saw it!!"

6)  The story is historical and supernatural.  Okay, Jesus rose from the dead!  Is this proof of evangelical Christian fundamentalism?  Or, for that matter, any other "ism"?  Hardly.  One could appeal to the Resurrection in support of universalism, as did many of the early Church fathers, who openly believed and taught that every human being, without exception, would be redeemed!

However, as #6 is an extraordinary claim, it ought to be rejected in favor of more completely plausible naturalistic explanations, at least until evidence provides a clear and convincing case as to why #2 through #5 are fundamentally flawed.

Numerology was used in all of antiquity as a literary device inside and outside religion, to over conflate the importance of a story. The number was added after the fact by the writer of that particular book to give the illusion of credibility.

It still remains there is no such thing as a magic baby with super powers. Someone wrote a story and others fell for it. No different than a fictional movie becomes a block buster.

(April 30, 2017 at 11:18 am)Jehanne Wrote: A lot has been made (certainly, in Lee's recent "hit" film) over the "500" who also appeared to Jesus after His Resurrection from the dead.  And, from the onset, I must admit that in the banal naivete of my youth, this one was "the clincher" in terms of my evangelical Christian faith.  Having been raised in evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity from age 5 or before (Mom & Dad sent sister & I to Sunday school so that they could stay home, presumably have sex, etc.) until well into high school, I did not enter the detox phase until nearly the end of my college days, and looking back on things I wasted a lot time going to Sunday morning & evening worship, plus some Wednesdays, when I could have been studying more, earning a higher grade-point, etc! 

Time & the Internet have changed things, and so, here's my take on those "500":

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  If this is not the bar for accepting a supernatural (or, paranormal) claim, then the mantra must be, "Come one, come all".  If Christian apologists want to hold-up "the 500" as being evidence of Jesus' corporeal resurrection, then I could just as well hold-up testimonial evidence in support of alien abductions, Sasquatch, etc., etc.  People have "extraordinary" experiences all the time.

2)  Paul was lying.  People did in his day just as they do it in ours.  Just look at ISIS; constant lies, all, presumably, in support of a "higher cause".  In 1st Corinthians 15, Paul was in a debate with some of the newly minted Christian followers, who were having doubts about the Resurrection of Jesus.  (Of course, if the Resurrection truly happened, one must wonder how anyone could have doubted it, or failed to have noticed it?!)  What better way to shore-up those doubts than to say that Jesus "appeared to the 500," some of whom are still around!  ("Who, though?"  Paul does not say.)

3)  Paul heard a story.  Scholars know, by any doubt, that the Resurrection appearances got embellished.  One can see this clearly by looking at the primitive account in Mark and then those in Matthew & Luke; finally, there's the Gospel of John, but after that, the Gospel of Peter, which has the most embellished accounts of any of the aforementioned.  It is completely possible that Paul heard a story of "the 500", which he then inserted into his epistle.  Of course, #2 and #3 are not mutually exclusive.

4)  The story is an interpolation.  Scholars know that Christian scribes changed the "sacred texts" over time.  For instance, the ending of the Gospel of Mark, the last chapter of the Gospel of John, the Johannine Comma, etc., are all widely accepted examples of where Christian scribes altered the New Testament over time.  It is completely plausible that a Christian scribe in the generation or two after Paul's death simply inserted the text where it was not there before; perhaps an earlier scribe had put the story into the margins and it got copied into the main text later on?

5)  The story is historical but completely natural.  Mass delusions have happened before and will happen again.  It does not necessarily take a "group hallucination" but could simply be due to the power of suggestion -- "Did you see that?  Hey, yeah, I did!  Let's go ask Catherine if she saw it!!"

6)  The story is historical and supernatural.  Okay, Jesus rose from the dead!  Is this proof of evangelical Christian fundamentalism?  Or, for that matter, any other "ism"?  Hardly.  One could appeal to the Resurrection in support of universalism, as did many of the early Church fathers, who openly believed and taught that every human being, without exception, would be redeemed!

However, as #6 is an extraordinary claim, it ought to be rejected in favor of more completely plausible naturalistic explanations, at least until evidence provides a clear and convincing case as to why #2 through #5 are fundamentally flawed.

You forgot explanation no 7; each one of the five hundred was a convicted frlon sent from a post apocalyptic future to stop the Army of the Twelve Monkeys.

(April 30, 2017 at 12:11 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you really truly think you are so much smarter than those who lived 2000 years ago?

Yes.

In fact, it is clear that Paul and the other disciples believed that the World was flat, like a pancake.  This is one of the many reasons why the Roman aristocracy ignored them.