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

[pocaracas]

---

Always providing cannon fodder for everyone... huh?

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".

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

Here is some advice; Never send mail to a nomad

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

---

I feel sort of ignored by His Majesty.
I'm sure His Majesty has much more important things to attend than little old me. But still, it would be nice to carry on with the conversation...