Paul's 500 witnesses.

[vorlon13]

Even taking theology courses at Moody Bible College can be quite an unpleasant jolt for new students with a strong Literalist/Inerrancy background.

It is indeed amazing what most all ministers/preechurs/reverends/pastors are actually taught in churchy school and the amount of it they NEVER use in a sermon lest they upset the pew warmers.

So much of the stuff atheists post here regarding inherent problems with Christian dogma and strictures is in fact well known to pastors, it's when the pew warmers start posting here and have to confront incongruities like Jesus being crucified twice according to scripture that I find it amazing they don't already know.  Think how much bible study is done, how many sermons they listen too, yet coming here and surprise, surprise, Jesus done been nailed up twice and they don't already know it!!   Their pastors know it, they just never put it in a sermon lest the sheeples rise up and torch the church building out of religious outrage, apparently.

Maybe pastors don't teach it because they think it's bullshit.

Inerrant Scripture records Jesus being crucified on Thursday AND Friday.  You know better than GOD???

What we need JESUS for when we've got YOU !!!

[Jehanne]

Get any New Testament textbook used in any New Testament studies at any public university.

The point is the blatant contradiction. You endorse a revisionist historical theory at the beginning of the post, then at the end of the post you say you don't do that. THere were other problems in the post, but that just stuck out like a sore thumb.

I don't think that you can point to any New Testament scholar who regards the "500" as being historical, other than the right-wing evangelicals.

[Brian37]

The point is the blatant contradiction. You endorse a revisionist historical theory at the beginning of the post, then at the end of the post you say you don't do that. THere were other problems in the post, but that just stuck out like a sore thumb.

I don't think that you can point to any New Testament scholar who regards the "500" as being historical, other than the right-wing evangelicals.

Seen tons of apologists make this argument over the years. And again, numbers, even in polytheism, and even in ancient plays and mere literature were used as devices to over conflate the story. 

Use of numbers in legends and myths is not a patent owned or invented by Christianity. It really is no different than how other species will puff out their chests, stand on their hind legs, or expand their ears, like elephants do to make themselves appear bigger than they really are. This is merely the human literary fictional projection of that.

[John V]

Inerrant Scripture records Jesus being crucified on Thursday AND Friday.  You know better than GOD???

What we need JESUS for when we've got YOU !!!

No, some people's interpretation of Scripture sees a conflict between the synoptics and John. Others don't see a conflict. And within that group, some have it on the one day, some on the other. I have a minority position within my church.

---

I don't think that you can point to any New Testament scholar who regards the "500" as being historical, other than the right-wing evangelicals.

A scholar who believes that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ apparently believes in the resurrection, and you would label a believing scholar as a right-wing evangelical.

So, your point boils down to, I don't think you can find a scholar who doesn't believe in the resurrection, yet believes that there were indeed witnesses to the resurrected Christ. And I agree that that would be a tough thing to find.

[Jehanne]

Inerrant Scripture records Jesus being crucified on Thursday AND Friday.  You know better than GOD???

What we need JESUS for when we've got YOU !!!

No, some people's interpretation of Scripture sees a conflict between the synoptics and John. Others don't see a conflict. And within that group, some have it on the one day, some on the other. I have a minority position within my church.

---

I don't think that you can point to any New Testament scholar who regards the "500" as being historical, other than the right-wing evangelicals.

A scholar who believes that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ apparently believes in the resurrection, and you would label a believing scholar as a right-wing evangelical.

So, your point boils down to, I don't think you can find a scholar who doesn't believe in the resurrection, yet believes that there were indeed witnesses to the resurrected Christ. And I agree that that would be a tough thing to find.

You might want try reading Catholic scholars, such as the late Father Raymond Brown, Father John Meier, etc.  In fact, you'll find a lot of believing scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, who do not take the "500" at face value.  You can start here for some critical (yet, believing) scholarship:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15

[GrandizerII]

No, some people's interpretation of Scripture sees a conflict between the synoptics and John. Others don't see a conflict.

Bolded mine. Not without suffering major cognitive dissonance.

[John V]

You might want try reading Catholic scholars, such as the late Father Raymond Brown, Father John Meier, etc.  In fact, you'll find a lot of believing scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, who do not take the "500" at face value.  You can start here for some critical (yet, believing) scholarship:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15

OK, what part of that page says that the 500 is not to be taken at face value?

[Jehanne]

You might want try reading Catholic scholars, such as the late Father Raymond Brown, Father John Meier, etc.  In fact, you'll find a lot of believing scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, who do not take the "500" at face value.  You can start here for some critical (yet, believing) scholarship:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15

OK, what part of that page says that the 500 is not to be taken at face value?

It doesn't, and I never claimed that it did, only that you'll find "critical scholarship" (yet, "believing scholarship") at that site.  Still, I can assure you that there are a number of Catholic and Protestant scholars, as well as secular ones, who do not believe the "500" to be historical, and yet, some still believe in the Resurrection while others do not.

[Harry Nevis]

But did absorbing the Romans leave Christianity unscathed?

And note any resulting changes in the tenets of Christianity following that would have been post-Jesus (and post-Paul tool), and therefore in furtherance of apostasy.


As an atheist, Christers willingly self falsifying their own faith gladdens my heart !!!

I like also how they claim marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman when christianity only adopted that from the Romans.

[John V]

It doesn't, and I never claimed that it did, only that you'll find "critical scholarship" (yet, "believing scholarship") at that site.  Still, I can assure you that there are a number of Catholic and Protestant scholars, as well as secular ones, who do not believe the "500" to be historical, and yet, some still believe in the Resurrection while others do not.

I'm sure there are believing scholars who doubt the 500. I'm also pretty confident that there are believing scholars who accept the 500. So, scholarship is divided, as it usually is. That's hardly problematic for the believer.