Can 500+ Eyewitnesses Be Wrong? (Jesus, Earth, disciples, Corinthians)

[JerryL]

Nope ... Paul was speaking in real time ... whereas you were using a Location-Selecting Dynameter to go back in time - (you'll get that in a minute or so).

I was speaking in real-time when I was back there. Though I doubt even you believe Paul was wandering around with a dictation machine saying "hold on a minute, I need to write this down".

So there we have it. I have a more credible claim (as I have more claimed witnesses).

Had you really been there, you wouldn't be misspelling it.

I can't find the cuniform characters on my keyboard.

What gave you that impression?

Because you appear to believe someone on the basis they say "I had 500 witnesses". Obviously, I'm an order of magnatude more credible.

If you are not asserting that the Biblical claim that 500 people were there creates credability, then I retract my "you believe I was there". If, however, you do; I can fathom no explanation of why you would not believe mine.

(and let's remember, this thread is about one topic: The credibilty of the claim).

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by JerryL

If you are not asserting that the Biblical claim that 500 people were there creates credability, then I retract my "you believe I was there".

Thank you for your retraction.

[michel]

Originally Posted by drekmed

wasn't aware that god actually wrote anything in the bible,

Well, drekmed, if you would have thought before you answered, you would have realized that God actually wrote TWO things in Scripture Himself:

• The Ten Commandments - (Exodus 20)
• The Handwriting on the Wall - (Daniel 5:25)

In view of the fact that God took credit for writing Scripture - (2 Timothy 3:16) - He also accepts the blame for it. And since God is perfect, so is His documentation.

it is just men writing things they percieved as being from god.

uh-huh

it has been changed several times, this is covered in other threads.

It sure has - for preservation purposes. As the language changes, so does the documentation. From Autographs, to Scriptures, to Gothic, to English. If He hadn't of done that, we'd all have to learn Hebrew and Koine Greek just to know what the Scriptures say. I'm sure you're grateful to God for that.

this proves that it has been changed at least once

Try seven - (Psalm 12:6)

that is most likely only in the english translation, and it probably isn't by accident or divine influence

uh-huh

i asked how exactly did god endorse paul's words, i dont see the answers you gave as being able to answer that, since it could be man endorsing paul's words.
now if you said because god has spoken to you personally and told you that everything you read in the bible is true, that would be an endorsement.
however, it has to be god actually saying these things, not a feeling you have about the accuracy of the feeling you had.

It would be an affront to God to demand He "prove" His documentation in Person, I'm sure you can appreciate that. Try that at work when the boss sends a memo around and see how long you remain employed.

In Luke 16, when the rich man realized the reality of Hell, he asked Abraham to allow him to go back and witness to his 5 brothers. Abraham said NO because they have the Scriptures available to them. We can learn from others' tragedies, can't we?

i guess what im saying is there is no way (besides god coming back, physically, and telling me, in front of many witnesses and video cameras, that paul was right) that i will think the bible is anything more than an old work of fiction.

Like I said, see if your boss will appreciate your "validation skills" at work.

but if you believe god is all powerful, it shouldn't be much of a stretch for him to do just that. right?

What makes you think, drekmed, when He wouldn't even let Moses see Him, that He'll let YOU see him?

Exodus 33:20 = AND HE SAID, THOU CANST NOT SEE MY FACE: FOR THERE SHALL NO MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE.

[Fluffy]

Steve is using definition 1 because he says the apostles actually saw christ rise and that is how they knew. Jensa is using definition 2 which does not require actual seeing just a strong belief.

I strongly disagree that seeing something is sufficient for "clarity or certainty" although that is what Steve appears to be arguing. Therefore, I still see no difference between Jensa and Steve's definitions. Furthermore, I do not believe that the first definition is attainable in the vast majority of cases so when somebody states that they know something, they are referring to the 2nd with emphasis on "regard".

Consider the source - and the fact that it was hearsay written decades after the purported event. As evidence it is worthless.

At my school we have to go to chapel once or twice a week. I remember in one of the sermons, our Reverend stated that the resurrection was the most well documented historical event ever.

[michel]

Originally Posted by JerryL

I was speaking in real-time when I was back there. Though I doubt even you believe Paul was wandering around with a dictation machine saying "hold on a minute, I need to write this down".

Why would he need to?

So there we have it. I have a more credible claim (as I have more claimed witnesses).

Wrong again --- 5 beats even 10,000 when it's a matter of nativity.

YET IN THE CHURCH I HAD RATHER SPEAK FIVE WORDS WITH MY UNDERSTANDING, ... THAN TEN THOUSAND WORDS IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE.

I can't find the cuniform characters on my keyboard.

Stare long enough --- they're there.

Because you appear to believe someone on the basis they say "I had 500 witnesses". Obviously, I'm an order of magnatude more credible.

Man, you forgot one thing: you forgot to submit it in writing to a higher Authority for approval. Too bad --- He only approves truth, anyway.

If you are not asserting that the Biblical claim that 500 people were there creates credability, then I retract my "you believe I was there". If, however, you do; I can fathom no explanation of why you would not believe mine.

You're overlooking something. I wasn't there --- Paul was --- and he already knew what the eyewitnesses had told him. So he was just mentioning them for emphasis. Thus "credibility" wasn't even an issue with him. Since I believe Paul, I believe Paul's witnesses.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

At my school we have to go to chapel once or twice a week. I remember in one of the sermons, our Reverend stated that the resurrection was the most well documented historical event ever.

Good point, Fluffy. I remember hearing that once, myself. It makes sense to me!

[JerryL]

Why would he need to?

To be writing "real time", which was your claim of him.

Wrong again --- 5 beats even 10,000 when it's a matter of nativity.

Which would be irrellevent even if true as we are not discussing a nativity.

Stare long enough --- they're there.

This is about a credible as anything else you post.

Man, you forgot one thing: you forgot to submit it in writing to a higher Authority for approval. Too bad --- He only approves truth, anyway.

Also not the topic of the thread. You started a thread on the credibility of 500 witnesses in regards to "there were 500 witnesses". I've stated there were 5,000 to mine, and so an argument that "there were 500 witnesses" proves something means my time-travels are proven.

You're overlooking something. I wasn't there --- Paul was --- and he already knew what the eyewitnesses had told him. So he was just mentioning them for emphasis. Thus "credibility" wasn't even an issue with him. Since I believe Paul, I believe Paul's witnesses.

Then you've created a thread that you really have nothing to say on. In presupposing Paul's correctness, you've also presupposed the event occured. The fact that you've presupposed 500 people saw it is secondary. You've really got nothing to say other than "I believe it because I beleive it". Why are you wasting time with discussions about witnesses?

[michel]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Also not the topic of the thread. You started a thread on the credibility of 500 witnesses in regards to "there were 500 witnesses". I've stated there were 5,000 to mine, and so an argument that "there were 500 witnesses" proves something means my time-travels are proven.

Believe me, Jerry --- I believe you time-traveled --- okay? I just think you're still there, and you're trying to prove you aren't. When I get verification from those 5000 that you've left, then I'll believe you're here. Remember: I need it in writing, though.

Then you've created a thread that you really have nothing to say on.

Paul said it all.

In presupposing Paul's correctness, you've also presupposed the event occurred. The fact that you've presupposed 500 people saw it is secondary. You've really got nothing to say other than "I believe it because I beleive it". Why are you wasting time with discussions about witnesses?

If you look at the name of this thread, it ends in a question mark. Thus I am submitting this "presupposition" (as you call it) to you, et. al., for intelligent discussion. Therefore, who is "wasting time" --- you or I?