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

[His_Majesty]

You're missing the point. You see the longer people wait to describe an event, the more likely they are to misremember it.

Bullshit.

1. I remember watching a documentary on the JFK assasination, and in the documentary, there was a host of witnesses of that day...and there was even a young fella (at the time) on there that testified to what he saw, since he was at the hospital when the vehicle that JFK was shot in pulled up, and he said he remember seeing pieces of brain matter inside the vehicle. This was over 50 years ago, and guess what, he remembered it.

2. Some of the survivors of the Jonestown mass suicide are still living today and have testified in documentaries on what it was like living in Jonestown...and this was over 30 years ago.

3. In 1994, I went on a trip to Seattle to spend Christmas with my uncle...and I remember the trip very vividly. That was over 20 years ago.

The conclusion is, yeah, as you said, you are less likely to remember certain things the longer time pass since the event...but you don't forget significant things...like seeing brain matter inside the car that someone was shot in...like what it was like living in Jonestown...and trips that are near and dear to your heart...you dont' forget the significant stuff...and you certainly wouldn't forget a Resurrection.

But more importantly the bigger and more public an event, the greater the chance that someone will write about it sooner rather than later.

The average person living at that time and in that region could not read or write, Jenny...which is why the word had spread based on word of mouth, and it continued to spread from there. The most damning defeater of your "someone would have written it down" is the fact that Christianity spread like a wildfire DESPITE no one writing it down at that particular time...it still spread, regardless, and now it is the world's largest religion by numbers of followers based no one "writing it down" when you felt they should have written it down.

So if you went back in time and you witnessed Jesus performing all of his miracles, (since you are currently living in a day where there is camcorders, audio recorders, televisions, social media, etc)...if you went back in time and after seeing Jesus perform miracles, noticing no one is writing stuff down yell out "Could someone please write this stuff down???"

Jesus would turn to you and say "Don't worry, Jenny, I got this". In other words, it wasn't/isn't needed.

Therefore, if no one records a major event contemporaneously, chances are much higher it didn't happen.

Or chances could be that it did happen, just no one wrote it down.

Thus the "truth value" of the writing is highly dependent on when it was written.

As long as it was written during the time of the eyewitnesses, thats all that matters.

Uh huh, he knew it 20 years later, second hand.

No, he WROTE it down 20 years later...big difference, Jenny. He received shortly after the cross, which mean that the belief in the Resurrection itself is early.

He predates the gospels, so Gospels have nothing to do with what Paul would write if he had actual knowledge as opposed to supernatural revelation.

If he is predating the Gospels, and in his narratives he is talking about a Resurrected Jesus...don't you find it odd that we have a guy talking about a Resurrected Jesus well before the Gospels, which are BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus, is talking about a Resurrected Jesus???

hmmmm

Claims of miraculous knowledge hurt rather than bolster the veracity of Paul.

He said that Jesus appeared to him post-mortem...now whether or not you believe it was a spirtiual vision, or an actually physical appearance is irrelevant...the point is, he made the claim...so either he was hallucinating, lying, or telling the truth.

We really don't know which Paul he met with (Pickup's post above).

Bullshit. He said he only met with Peter, not NONE OF THE OTHER APOSTLES ...so obviously he is talking about Peter, apostle of Jesus (Gal 1:18-24)..and unless you can point out a different apostle that was named PETER, then you are obviously moving the goal posts...Pickup's post will not be able to save you, dear...dodging clear and apparent implications only proves to me that I am winning.

And more importantly, he never mentions any of those hypothetical discussions of the life of Jesus.

Then I guess we are to conclude that he met Peter and they didn't discuss Jesus at all...in 15 days.

The study of theology does not prepare one to analyze the veracity of historic documents. That's it. It would be very odd if the only people studying Jefferson were political philosophers. But that is essentially the position we are in with regard to the Bible up until recently. Recently, there have been questions.

They are all historians in some fashion, Jenny.