Can 500+ Eyewitnesses Be Wrong?

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

What gave you that impression?

Click to expand...

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).

JerryL said:

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".

Click to expand...

Thank you for your retraction.

drekmed said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

uh-huh

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Try seven - (Psalm 12:6)

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JerryL said:

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".

Click to expand...

Why would he need to?

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Fluffy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Why would he need to?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Stare long enough --- they're there.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

JerryL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Let me put it this way... Yes it is very hard to have 500+ eyewitnesses be wrong... but we only have one that actually wrote about it... and he can be wrong! =)

History is always written by the powerful, there could be millions of them. This does not make it correct.

Paul was referring to a creed that circulated in early on (within 2-8 years of the Resurrection A.D. 32-38)was believed to be an eyewitness account of people (including the disciples) who encountered the resurrected Jesus. Paul himself being an eyewitness who encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus that prompted his own conversion from a persecutor of Christians to a dedicated apostle of Christ. They are a majority of scholars and theologians who acknowledge the trustworthiness of the creed that Paul makes reference to in I Corinthians 15.

AV1611 said:

In view of the fact that God took credit for writing Scripture - (2 Timothy 3:16) - He also accepts the blame for it.

Click to expand...

No, 'God' took credit for nothing - not yours and not anyone elses. The anonymous author of 2 Timothy claimed that 'Scripture' is inspired. So what?

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.

Click to expand...

That's been our point from the beginning. You've no verification from Paul's claimed witnesses. All you have is the assertion by Paul.

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that the topic of the thread was undiscussable. I said your position was.

Whether 500 people agreeing makes something true is certainly a discussion, as is whether someone asserting that there were 500 witnesses has any meaning. What isn't discussable is "Paul is right", which is the sum-total of your position and is not a question, nor even a supported position, but a statement.

JerryL said:

That's been our point from the beginning. You've no verification from Paul's claimed witnesses. All you have is the assertion by Paul.

Click to expand...

I believe I already told you the Bible has been verified by God, Himself.

What isn't discussable is "Paul is right", which is the sum-total of your position and is not a question, nor even a supported position, but a statement.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. Since God, Himself verified Scripture, and put His stamp of approval on it, all we have now are statements.

You say you time-traveled back into history. If you wanted me to believe that, I wouldn't unless it came in writing with God's stamp of approval. I couldn't care less about what your "witnesses" say sola graphia, but I would if it was sola Scriptura.

In other words, to put it in today's vernacular, it must be written on official paper and signed.

AV1611 said:

Since God, Himself verified Scripture, and put His stamp of approval on it, all we have now are statements.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. See Trotting Out Tired Old Timothy.

Deut. 32.8 said:

Nonsense. See Trotting Out Tired Old Timothy.

Click to expand...

I just now did.

People LOVE to attack anything in Scripture they can get their hands on, don't they?

It makes them feel "scholarly".

Deut. 32.8 said:

Nonsense. See Trotting Out Tired Old Timothy.

Click to expand...

The point about Scripture being just confined to the Old Testament is fallacious.

Peter says otherwise by calling Paul's writings Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.

John 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; just can't get away from those 3:16's; can you, Deut?

JerryL said:

What isn't discussable is "Paul is right", which is the sum-total of your position and is not a question, nor even a supported position, but a statement.

Click to expand...

Now that I have your retraction (thanks again) let me comment on this as I would have liked to from the start.

AV1611 said:

In view of the fact that 1 Corinthians 15 mentions over 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, is that enough to convict Him of same?

Click to expand...

Not for a second.

AV1611 said:

Peter says otherwise by calling Paul's writings Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.

Click to expand...

2 Peter is pseudonymous apologetics. From Kirby's site:His comments regarding scripture carry no more value than yours.

AV1611 said:

John 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; just can't get away from those 3:16's; can you, Deut?

Click to expand...

True; those who engage inerrantists are plagued with their absurd and pretentious arguments.

I believe I already told you the Bible has been verified by God, Himself.

Click to expand...

How can I verify that God has verified Paul's verification of God?

You say you time-traveled back into history. If you wanted me to believe that, I wouldn't unless it came in writing with God's stamp of approval. I couldn't care less about what your "witnesses" say sola graphia, but I would if it was sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

My time-travel has been verified by God.

So now that you know God has verified it, you agree I time-travelled?