The 500 & Common Sense.

[Jehanne]

I have, at age 53, just finished listening to the Age of Reason on audio book (Audible), having never read it.  All that I can say is that Thomas Paine, whom I consider to be one of the Founding Fathers, is truly amazing.  Even though his book is 200 years old, it is an incredible analysis of "Holy Writ".  Paine's discussion of Paul's "500 brethren" in 1st Corinthians 15 is truly amazing, and contains analysis that I have never heard before, from anyone, including Professor Bart Ehrman, although, I am sure that such deficiency is on my part alone.  But, here's Paine's take on things:

1)  Paul was an extremist, who went from one end to another, first persecuting Christianity before becoming one of its most adherent believers.

2)  Most importantly, and never considered by yours truly; assuming, for the moment, that the story of "the 500" was true, such "evidence" was, at the time, not sufficient to convert Paul to Christianity.  In other words, even with the so-called "500 witnesses," Paul still persisted in his unbelief, and so, even their supposed testimony was insufficient to convince Paul of the so-called truth of the Gospel.  Only Paul's private encounter with Jesus enough to convince him, and not the experiences of others.

3)  As was known to me, Paul is the only one who mentions "the 500"; they do not mention themselves (say, by recording their experiences of Jesus firsthand) nor does anyone else mention them, either.

Paine's conclusion:  Paul mentions testimony as being "evidence" of Jesus' Resurrection which he, Paul, found to be unconvincing during the time that he was an unbeliever.

[Silver]

1. I have heard that one before.

2. Wasn't it his seizure/vision on a road from somewhere to someplace that led to his conversion?

3. Paul is the only one who mentions a lot of things. He was cray cray.

[The Grand Nudger]

Paul found it very credible just as soon as he found out how to be the provider of the thing. I say this in jest. There was never a paul.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Isn't it amazing how we never from any of the other witnesses 

[Silver]

Witness testimony is notably unreliable.

[Brian37]

It is quite common for humans to have a "oh shit" moment, or a medical event that alters one's perception. 

 My biological sister whom back in the mid 2000s divulged she was an atheist. I was proud of her at the time. But just a couple years ago, unfortunately for her, her adoptive parents died in subsequent years. I contacted her only for her to say that she was no longer an atheist. 

I highly suspect her desire to stay connected with her dead parents, and possible PTSD, and or bi polar or sleep paralysis, or even urinary tract infections, all natural causes of false perceptions. 

I could not convince her that when I was a kid, that I had "witnessed" three separate times loved ones standing at the edge of my bed in the middle of the night. One time was my dead grandmother, the second time was my dead adoptive father (not my sister, we were adopted out to different families)., But the last time was my false perception that my live living mother back then as a kid, was standing at the edge of my bed. 

It never surprises me when someone switches positions in any direction. It does piss me off that humans don't understand the swing is mostly based on fear.

[Rev. Rye]

If you’ve ever read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, one of the things he discovered when looking into the history of mass movements was how moving from one extreme to the other is actually far more common than one might think. In terms of eras whose politics I’m more conversant in, it’s more common for a Nazi to become a communist (or vice versa) than a moderate. Hoffer argues that this is because the extremists on either end are more similar to each other than the center, and I’m not 100% sure that’s accurate, but if you look long enough at Twitter, which I would not recommend because it’s such a toxic corner of the Internet, it’s easy to see where he’s coming from, even if it’s just because sometimes, people just want to watch the world burn and it’s depressingly easy to find examples of people who think like that.

“Where mass movements are in violent competition with each other, there are not infrequent instances of converts—even the most zealous—shifting their allegiance from one to the other. A Saul turning into Paul is neither a rarity nor a miracle. In our day, each proselytizing mass movement seems to regard the zealous adherents of its antagonist as its own potential converts. Hitler looked on the German Communists as potential National Socialists: “The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.” Captain Röhm boasted that he could turn the reddest Communist into a glowing nationalist in four weeks. On the other hand, Karl Radek looked on the Nazi Brown Shirts (S.A.) as a reserve for future Communist recruits.”

If the story of the 500 isn’t talked about very often, it may be because it’s roughly on par with the verses in the Gospel of Matthew where, once Jesus dies on the cross, a zombie apocalypse happens in Jerusalem. And, yes, this is actually in the Bible. Hell, it’s even in the St. Matthew Passion.





Sadly, Bach did not get Picander to write the text for an aria or chorale elaborating on what happened in Jerusalem when there was no more room in Hell, although “Mache dich mein Herze rein” is always a highlight of my Good Friday.

[Fake Messiah]

That whole passus, including 500-plus Brethren who all saw the Lord at the same time, is most probably a later interpolation by someone else. There are many reasons to think that, like the book of Acts (1:15) tells us that there was only around 120 believers total at the time of Jesus’ ascension.

And we find no mention of 500 in the Gospels. All of the evangelists were ignorant about it. In the earliest Gospel, "Mark", resurrected Jesus shows to no one (if we don't take into account later interpolation in Mark).

[Drich]

I have, at age 53, just finished listening to the Age of Reason on audio book (Audible), having never read it.  All that I can say is that Thomas Paine, whom I consider to be one of the Founding Fathers, is truly amazing.  Even though his book is 200 years old, it is an incredible analysis of "Holy Writ".  Paine's discussion of Paul's "500 brethren" in 1st Corinthians 15 is truly amazing, and contains analysis that I have never heard before, from anyone, including Professor Bart Ehrman, although, I am sure that such deficiency is on my part alone.  But, here's Paine's take on things:

1)  Paul was an extremist, who went from one end to another, first persecuting Christianity before becoming one of its most adherent believers.

2)  Most importantly, and never considered by yours truly; assuming, for the moment, that the story of "the 500" was true, such "evidence" was, at the time, not sufficient to convert Paul to Christianity.  In other words, even with the so-called "500 witnesses," Paul still persisted in his unbelief, and so, even their supposed testimony was insufficient to convince Paul of the so-called truth of the Gospel.  Only Paul's private encounter with Jesus enough to convince him, and not the experiences of others.

3)  As was known to me, Paul is the only one who mentions "the 500"; they do not mention themselves (say, by recording their experiences of Jesus firsthand) nor does anyone else mention them, either.

Paine's conclusion:  Paul mentions testimony as being "evidence" of Jesus' Resurrection which he, Paul, found to be unconvincing during the time that he was an unbeliever.

so? I followed a very similar path.. not witnessing the resurrection, but was unconvinced about anything christian till i experienced it first hand. to which i point out again this experience is offered to anyone who like paul seek God out on his terms.

[Jehanne]

I have, at age 53, just finished listening to the Age of Reason on audio book (Audible), having never read it.  All that I can say is that Thomas Paine, whom I consider to be one of the Founding Fathers, is truly amazing.  Even though his book is 200 years old, it is an incredible analysis of "Holy Writ".  Paine's discussion of Paul's "500 brethren" in 1st Corinthians 15 is truly amazing, and contains analysis that I have never heard before, from anyone, including Professor Bart Ehrman, although, I am sure that such deficiency is on my part alone.  But, here's Paine's take on things:

1)  Paul was an extremist, who went from one end to another, first persecuting Christianity before becoming one of its most adherent believers.

2)  Most importantly, and never considered by yours truly; assuming, for the moment, that the story of "the 500" was true, such "evidence" was, at the time, not sufficient to convert Paul to Christianity.  In other words, even with the so-called "500 witnesses," Paul still persisted in his unbelief, and so, even their supposed testimony was insufficient to convince Paul of the so-called truth of the Gospel.  Only Paul's private encounter with Jesus enough to convince him, and not the experiences of others.

3)  As was known to me, Paul is the only one who mentions "the 500"; they do not mention themselves (say, by recording their experiences of Jesus firsthand) nor does anyone else mention them, either.

Paine's conclusion:  Paul mentions testimony as being "evidence" of Jesus' Resurrection which he, Paul, found to be unconvincing during the time that he was an unbeliever.

so? I followed a very similar path.. not witnessing the resurrection, but was unconvinced about anything christian till i experienced it first hand. to which i point out again this experience is offered to anyone who like paul seek God out on his terms.

I have taken two too many psychology classes to believe in "personal experience," or what William Lane Craig calls that "software inner voice."  Fantasy prone personality disorder is a spectrum, and as two-thirds of schizophrenics are never diagnosed, how do you know that you are not deluding yourself??  Besides, many Muslims and thousands of other different religions will cite "personal experience" as evidence of their beliefs.  Why should I believe you and not them?