MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[YahwehIsTheWay]

You can have the last word, for now. Right now, I have bigger fish to fry.

Come back here! After promising a case for the resurrection of Jesus you just run off without following through?

FINE!

I don't need you. I can hold my own on that thread without your help!

Just ask the atheists here. Even they will tell you that I'm doing as good a job as they could possibly expect from anyone! In fact, I'm heading back to that thread right now because I just thought of another great argument to post!

SO WHO NEEDS YOU?

*sulk*

[Jenny A]

Paul writes between 51 and 58 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles That is twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened.

Twenty to thirty is misleading...His earliest epistles can be said to have been written around 20 years after the cross, and the latest is in the early 60's AD.

Scholars have estimated Jesus' death between 27 and 36 AD with 32 AD being the best guess. 51 AD is 19 years after 32AD and 60 AD 28 years after. So I hardly think twenty to thirty is disingenuous. Grow-up.

The fact remains that Paul did not write of Jesus for at least 19 years after Jesus' supposed death.

He does not claim to know what Jesus said in the flesh.

He knew about the Resurrection, tho. That is the main thing. He obviously knew about the Resurrection.

Which he claims to know by supernatural means. It's not historical evidence.

Instead he says, "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ."

---

Having had that revelation he did not go to Jerusalem to talk with those who had actually seen Jesus. Instead, he preached in Arabia and Damascus. "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." Galatians 1:15-17

---

Only three years after that does he go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James.

Um, Jenny..regardless of when he went to meet Peter, the point is he WENT TO MEET PETER, who was a contemporary account to the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. That is the only point that I made in that regard, and you are giving scriptures as if that somehow contradicts what I said, that Peter met Paul and James...you said ALLLLL of that as if that was a defeater of what I said, only to, at the very end, CONFIRM what I said

You continue to miss the point which is that Paul does not ever discuss the details of Jesus' life, and he is the first "witness." His testimony is based entirely on revelation.

Does it bother you that in his letters Paul claims only to have seen Jesus in a vision?

Um, no it doesn't, and I am not even sure that he was talking about the vision he experienced on the road to Damascus...it could have been two separate accounts, one vision, and one physical.

Sorry if you're claiming he met Jesus in the flesh after Jesus' death, than we just have another incredible supernatural claim here.

His account of the last supper is also visionary. If he knew of Jesus personally, or spoke to people who did why is it that he never alludes to any of the details of Jesus' life.

Because that is what the Gospels are for...you ever heard of "motive"..or "purpose" in writing?...his purpose wasn't to give an account of Jesus' life...we have four Gospels for that...Paul's purpose was to keep the early Church on track, and instruct Christians on how to live productive, Christ-like lives.

And he tells them to live god-like lives without ever referring to what Jesus said about how people should live? Why not? Because he had no details of Jesus' life whatesoever.

For Paul the death and resurrection are everything. His Jesus is unearthly being known only through revelation.

It doesn't matter whether it was earthly or divine relevation...if what he said happened ACTUALLY happened, then how does this not confirm Christianity.

You're assuming the resurrection to prove Jesus' existence. Talk about begging the question.

But they aren't really historians are they? They are theologians and like the theologian archeologists likely to assume the truth of the Bible rather than test it as a real historian would.

Again, not all of them are theologicans...and I will ask you once more..IF the majority of all "scholars" were Christians...why would they go around saying "The majority of scholars believe that Jesus existed"...which would be the same as saying "The majority of us Christians believe that Jesus existed"....makes no sense.

Name some whose training is not theological. Good luck because the vast majority of them are Christian and the vast majority of those who aren't were when they got their biblical training in divinity school. And they say the are in the majority because recently, they have secular competitors who disagree.

If you cite him as authority, and you have, it's your problem. Rely on your own evidence and it isn't. But you don't want to rely on the evidence do you? You want to rely on the "vast majority historians."

I don't recall relying on him as a source..and if I did, please tell me where?

Right here bottom of post #114; and here post #163, and here post #191, and here post #344.

Because you rely on him and men like him. You have used him as authority. And he's part of that "vast majority" you keeping referring to.

So what if I based my case primarily on Bart Ehrmans work, who isn't a Christian? Then what will be the excuse?

That you are relying on authority rather than facts once again. Not to mention that Ehrman is also a theologian not a historian by training.

[Mudhammam]

He says he met Cephas, a prominent member of the Jerusalem church, distinguished from "The Twelve" in his first letter to the church in Corinth and only mythologized in the Gospels and Acts later on. So, we know little about Cephas and his supposed relationship to "Lord Yahweh Saves Christ Lamb slain from the foundation of the world of Bethlehem and Nazareth, Nazarene son of Man, God, Joseph, and the Virgin Mary."

Somebody tell this guy that Cephas is the aramaiac equivilent to the name "Peter"

Whewwww ignorance.

Some New Testament scholars have argued that they were two different people. Of course, I wouldn't expect our resident Christian ignoramus to know that, or to provide examples of Paul referring to "Peter."

Then there's your early church father Eusebius, whom you're probably unaware of, since you know, churches generally thrive when their congregants are dolts, who writes in his Book I of his Church History:

"They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face."

[Minimalist]

with 32 AD being the best guess.

I can't imagine why.

Meet Lucius Vitellius Veteris



That's him seated on the right with Aulus Vitellius on the left, his son and short-lived emperor in 69. As the inscription indicates he was consul 3 times and censor.

But what is important about Vitellius is his first consulship in 34 under Tiberius. He served his year in office and then was eligible for one of the major military commands controlled by the emperor. In 35 he was appointed Imperial Legate (governor) of Syria. Normally this would be of little interest except Josephus recounts how Herod Antipas divorced his first wife Phasaelis, the daughter of King Aretas IV of Nabatea, in favour of Herodias, who had been married to his recently deceased brother Herod Philip I. While Josephus does not tie the second marriage to the death of John the Baptist the way the gospel accounts do he does repeat that it was Antipas who had JtheB killed and the gospels insist that it was after the death of JtheB that jesus kick-started his "ministry."

Now, regardless of how much bullshit they are trying to stuff into the bag it goes without saying that Herodias had to be a widow before Antipas could marry his brother's widow. Josephus dates Philip's death to 34. [6. About this time it was that Philip, Herod's ' brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius" Antiquites, XVIII
4,6] Tiberius reign began in 14 so adding 20 years gives us a fairly stable date of 34.

Thus we are already 2 years beyond 32 and jesus hasn't even gotten started yet according to the gospel accounts. It gets worse. Whatever arrangements Herodias and Antipas reached concerning marriage had to be ratified by Tiberius as Antipas was a client king and the idea of the marriage was to unite the late Philip's tetrarchy with Antipas.' While the Romans were always looking to dump Judaea on the Herod family no one would be so brazen as to act without even asking and Josephus duly recounts that Antipas took ship for Rome to get approval.
Let's be charitable and say that all this happened in 34. On 12-31-34, Vitellius' term as consul expires and he finds himself appointed to Syria.
It's reasonable that he would have had to gather a staff and make various arrangements to leave Rome and sailing in the winter was not preferred anyway so let's allow for Vitellius' arrival at his new post in the Spring of 35.

Meanwhile, Josephus is telling us that Aretas IV is acting like an outraged father - this was also a marriage of state and the rejection of Phaesalis is also a rejection of Aretas IV and Nabatea. He attacks Antipas, kicks his ass, and then realizes that he has just attacked an ally of Rome. Almost never a good idea. Josephus says that Antipas writes to Tiberias ( minimum 3 weeks even by the Roman military post )
who then writes to Vitellius ( another minimum 3 weeks back) and directs him to go after Aretas IV.

Let's be clear though. In order for this sequence to happen:

Philip must die. 34 AD
Herodias must agree to marry Antipas.
Antipas must secure approval from Tiberius and return.
Antipas must divorce his wife and marry Herodias.
Aretas must attack, and Vitellius must have been in position as governor of Syria to receive his orders.

I've been charitable in putting all this between 34 and 35. Josephus claims that Vitellius was in Jerusalem when he received the letters informing him that Tiberius was dead and Caligula was the new emperor. Tiberius died in March of 37 which means that given the minimum 3 week transit of news it cannot have been before April of 37 that Vitellius was moving on Aretas IV. He suspended his campaign awaiting further orders from Caligula and so Aretas IV lived for 3 more years....probably shitting his pants the whole time wondering when the Romans would get around to whupping his ass.

Now there is an awkward problem in Josephus but this is long enough for now.

[pocaracas]

[HM's response to min - with a few flourishes]
Min, old boy... how could you possibly know all that?
You weren't there!!
You have as much reliable info for that as you have for good ol' J.C.!

[robvalue]

I was there! I saw all of this, and there was a Jesus but he just did some cheap sleight of hand tricks and said some cool sounding stuff. The rest of it people have made up.

I am right. Can you prove me wrong? Were you there, and if not how do you know I wasn't there?

If anyone wants any more details about what actually happened, I'll be happy to oblige.

I didn't want to sound all big headed by laying down the facts like this, but it's gone on long enough now. Atheism wins, unless anyone has objections.

If you're wondering about other religions, I was there too for all of that, and none of it is real either. There was some guy called Mohammad. He killed quite a few people, and had bad breath. I wasn't impressed.

[pocaracas]

Always providing cannon fodder for everyone... huh?

Historical characters are not commonly claiming to be gods.
Unless you count pharaohs...

Um, so what? I am just talking about Jesus the man...not Jesus the God.

Oh.... that's not what it says on the tin... "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ".
But I've already given you that it's possible such a man existed. To which you answered something like "it's like pulling teeth".

But, you know.... there is a gospel attributed to Peter... how about you tell me if he wrote down about his meeting with Paul? It would be rather significant, if he did, don't you think?
Also significant if he didn't...

No, I don't. I met my "girlfriend" former WNBA player Deanna Nolan (such a pretty thang)...I met her...and it was a great moment of my life...but guess what... I didn't write a damn book about it

You'd be on the cover of gossip magazines!
Since you're not... I'm guessing you're lying. See how I think of Paul's accounts?

That's how you like it!
You see, the claim of one person isn't really of that much worth.

Bullshit...because if I wanted to play the role of "super skeptic", I could say that all of the contemporary sources (people that made the claim) are lying. So no matter how many witnesses you give me, if my theory is that they were all lying, then your sources wouldn't mean to much of anything.

Who's playing the role of super skeptic?
I'm just trying to be a normal skeptic

From all the sources you showed on the OP, remove those that ONLY mention christians. i.e. no direct mentioning of Jesus. What are you left with?

After all, you can't prove that they aren't lying...you simply accept by faith that they are all telling the truth...and unless you are calling Paul a flat out LIAR, then it shouldn't be so hard to accept the fact that Paul met Peter and James brother of Jesus, just like he said.

It is possible that such a meeting took place, between Paul and one of the disciples of the prophet. Yes.
However, the only evidence you have for that is one claim... one claim by the person who would stand to gain adherents from such a claim. One claim that would boost his constituency... how difficult would it be to lie about that?

We could even try to address other claims by Paul, like... his conversion. Are there any corroborating documents of such a conversion? Or was it only Paul who knew he was Saul?

Many people in ancient times made claims... some are considered trustworthy, while others aren't. This trustworthiness is based on corroborating evidence... corroborating writings (as independent as possible), corroborating archeological findings, etc...

Right, and the corroborating evidence for Jesus is based on Jewish history, the origin of Christianity, the non-Christians sources I provided here, four Gospels, and the early Christian Church....and I didn't even mention Paul's epistles, since that is what is in question, but if you factor in that, you are making a case for the historical Jesus.

I mean hell, that is what historians are basing the case for Jesus on anyway.

Jewish history - check... almost... It's why I granted you the possibility.
Origin of christianity - Well... that one is all too muddied for us to be able to say anything.... the first and second centuries were chaotic on that regard.
non-Christian sources - Like I said above, give me the ones that talk about Jesus the man, not christians the believers.
Four gospels - The writing down of the mythology of the christians... not direct documentation of the events described therein.
Early christian church - From the 3rd century onwards this church made it the devilish business of hers to destroy what really happened during those first crucial decades... Ever heard of Marcion?

For your case of Paul meeting Peter, do you have any such corroborating evidence?

No, just like no one would have any corroborating evidence of me meeting Deanna Nolan...either I am lying when I say I met her, or I am telling the truth, and I don't think Paul is lying...especially if he was already stating that he had been ordained by the Holy Spirit...if he was already chosen by God or if he BELIEVED he had been chosen by God, then why would he need Peter? He wouldn't, but since he was simply telling the story how it is, he mentioned it.

Yes, I think you're lying. And I think he was lying, too. Lying is all too easy... all too natural for man.
And that "statement of him being ordained by the holy spirit" is just another lie. Since then, some psychological phenomena have been documented and cataloged... one that fits the tale is epilepsy - common enough for it to have happened to several people in ancient times, but uncommon enough for it to be viewed as a sign from god, or a devilish incarnation...
So.. perhaps he was lying, just not consciously. Maybe he was truly convinced of those things, in spite of them being induced by his own psyche. Nowadays, we would call that a self-delusion... back then... he was a prophet.

You may learn something from this...




Note that George actually sent letters to some people and signed them!
Not all, I grant that... it would be ludicrous to consider he would document all people he ever had contact with... but a few... it's to be expected!
And that's what we have.

Wait a minute, how do you know they are from him? Because that is what it says? Because that is what someone told you? So I can send a letter to myself and say that the rapper Lil Wayne sent it to me, right?

Why do you believe that GW actually wrote the letters? Were you there? Because it says he did??

We can systematically deny anything now, can't we.

Because the letters have his signature.
I don't care who wrote them, but whoever wrote them consistently signed "George Washington", with a consistent handwriting style... so we call that person George Washington. If his parents called him Bozo the Clown, I couldn't care less... his name, to me, is George Washington, for that is how he signed it.

Some of Paul's writings show the same sort of consistency... others don't. That's how experts (beats me if we're talking about historians, linguists, or archeologists) can attribute a high probability to the forget status of some of the writings, in the bible, claimed to be by Paul.
Forged, as in, not by the same person that wrote the majority of the things attributed to Paul, whoever this Paul was.

sad... sad....

Here is some advice; Never send mail to a nomad

Nomads can get mail: http://www.technomadia.com/2012/07/chapt...nd-voting/

[robvalue]

Sorry about that, it seems I have an alter ego too who hijacks my keyboard and makes unfalsifiable claims to make some sort of bizarre point about logic. Take no notice, there's no point argueing with someone like that. Seems to have sprung up a lot lately. I'm glad no one tries to debate him.

[abaris]

Still indulging that nonsense, I see.

I'd rather had him move on to stage two, which should be much more fun.

[robvalue]

It will be much more pointless. At least this task was possible. In the next he will be trying to make verified medical assessments of life and death and track the physical movements of corpses using textual hearsay accounts.

And after all that, he then presumably has to show what caused the resurrection and that Jesus (pronounced "hey, Zeus") ascended not just into the sky but into heaven. With crappy story books and forgeries. Otherwise we just have an unexplained phenomenon of a corpse reanimating.

Even if we had video tape of it all actually happening, it wouldn't be sufficient evidence. How exactly are you going to record him going to heaven? As far as we are concerned he will just disappear at some point, giving yet another interesting but unexplained phenomenon.

Unless the point of it is to give us all a good laugh, I urge him not to even attempt this. I'm sure David Blaine or someone could pull of a stunt like that, and not one person would believe he had gone to heaven after disappearing at the end.