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

[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.