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

[His_Majesty]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

sad... sad....

Here is some advice; Never send mail to a nomad

---

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.

---

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 lastest is in the early 60's AD.

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.

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. [quote]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

[quote='Jenny A' pid='807818' dateline='1417465135']
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.

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.

Nor does he ever speak of the teachings of Jesus.

Nothing that he said contradicts Jesus' teaching.

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.

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.

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?

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?