Can 500+ Eyewitnesses Be Wrong?

[michel]

I find great interest in that verse too. Could you please list names of some of the 500 (with sources of names attached) and explain why not a single one of them came forward to colloborate Paul's claim.

Furthermore, you do realize that Paul said he did not see the resurrection himself and converted on the road to Damacus (acts 9 9) at an unspecified later time when he claimed to have been visted by Jesus. Why do you think Paul did not convert at the time the 500 witness told him of this amazing endeavor but than turned around and assigned merit to it?

He was busy persecuting them:

Galatians 1:13 = FOR YE HAVE HEARD OF MY CONVERSATION IN TIME PAST IN THE JEW'S RELIGION, HOW THAT BEYOND MEASURE I PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND WASTED IT.

He then, later, meets Jesus' Himself while he's traveling to Damascus, and gets saved.

It's possible that the 500 people he's talking about are some of the Christians he, himself put to death. Stephen being the most famous one in Acts 7. (See Acts 8:1, where Saul was present at Stephen's execution.)

 

[robtex]

He was busy persecuting them:

Galatians 1:13 = FOR YE HAVE HEARD OF MY CONVERSATION IN TIME PAST IN THE JEW'S RELIGION, HOW THAT BEYOND MEASURE I PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND WASTED IT.

He then, later, meets Jesus' Himself while he's traveling to Damascus, and gets saved.

It's possible that the 500 people he's talking about are some of the Christians he, himself put to death. Stephen being the most famous one in Acts 7. (See Acts 8:1, where Saul was present at Stephen's execution.)

You are missing what I am saying. paul said there were 500 witness. None that were ever named by anyone else, and none that ever collaborated in print or in verbage the resurrection of Christ. Not a single one. The bible is the only source of this resurrection (with collaboration at a later time using the bible as a primary source). Nobody else confirmed any eye-witness and none of the eyewitness came forward or were named by the other apostles.

The 500 witness are like ghosts..no names no print no mention except in the bible....why is that?

 

[michel]

So you're arguing that because they tried to suppress a new cult (that's what it was at the time; I mean no offense to any Christians on the forum) and put to death those going against what they ordered, but it managed to survive through some believers until Constantine took it up, that it's right? :areyoucra I'm not going to touch that argument with a 10 foot pole.

No offense taken. We ARE a cult, by definition. But you also have to take into consideration that this "cult" predicted the death, burial, and resurrection of it's own Leader, not to mention their Leader prediction His closest followers denying Him.

 

[Jaymes]

It's not the only one that's done that, though; many other gods have been killed and resurrected. I'm not up to date on predictions made by other religions, though, so I can't comment there.

 

[michel]

You are missing what I am saying. paul said there were 500 witness. None that were ever named by anyone else, and none that ever collaborated in print or in verbage the resurrection of Christ. Not a single one. The bible is the only source of this resurrection (with collaboration at a later time using the bible as a primary source). Nobody else confirmed any eye-witness and none of the eyewitness came forward or were named by the other apostles.

The 500 witness are like ghosts..no names no print no mention except in the bible....why is that?

There ARE names mentioned. Stephen for one.

IF anyone else wrote about the account (and I would have to guess that they did), then two primary things happened:

• Luke, under divine guidance, chose not to use them - (Luke 1:1-2)
• They faded into obscurity over time

As for why their names aren't mentioned outside of Scripture, I don't know. Other than the fact that no official document was drawn up (it wouldn't have been necessary, or very smart, either --- Saul would have been knocking at your door).

 

[michel]

It's not the only one that's done that, though; many other gods have been killed and resurrected. I'm not up to date on predictions made by other religions, though, so I can't comment there.

I'm sure you're right, but for 500+ people to come forward, when there was an axe over their heads, doesn't make sense, unless they knew it to be true.

Yes, some have died in the past for other religious figures, but not one that is still in its infancy. Usually it's because of going to war with neighboring countries in the name of their leader, or just downright anarchy that is needing to be suppressed.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The Roman Empire took action to suppress this

While the Roman persecution of early Christians was certainly tragic, it is not very good evidence that what Christians believe is true. The followers of virtually every religion in existence today have been suppressed in the past. So?

Some of the higher-ranking Jews themselves did, too

So if high-ranking Jews try to suppress something, it must be true?

Many, if not most, of these eyewitnesses were put to death

People were certainly put to death, but whether or not they say a resurrected man is in dispute.

With so much hostile witnesses against this claim, how did it grow?

1) Are you suggesting that if a belief grows despite a lot of "hostile witness" that belief must be true? 2) Did you know that there are other religions which have grown despite "hostile witness"? Scientology has grown immensely, yet there is a lot of hostility in our country towards it. How many Jews, Pagans, Native Americans, Buddhists, etc. do you think have died for their beliefs throughout history?

I think the growth of a belief in the face of oppression shows the resilience of the human spirit, but it does not necessarily mean the belief is true.

In other words, even those hostile to Christianity were admitting the resurrection.

Could you provide some references for us, please?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Why are so many people so obsessed about getting the names of the 500 witnesses? Even the important line of descendent , the geneology of Jeses Christ can be different from the two gospel of Matthew and Luke:

Matthew, after naming twenty-four generations as filling out the line, and making it complete between David and Jacob, concludes by saying, "and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary."

But Luke, antecedent to spinning out his list to fourteen generations more than Matthew, i.e., making it fourteen generations longer, declares that "Joseph was the son of Heli." So that Joseph either had two fathers, Jacob and Heli; or Matthew or Luke, or both, were most egregiously mistaken, with all their "inspiration."

There may be 500 witnesses, or there may be 1000 as stated by Paul. However, it is important to show that witnesses can be found outside the bible source.

 

[Steve]

Just because someone would die for their beliefs it doesn't make them right. I hear this argued often; 'they'd die for it, they must be right!' People that aren't Christians die for their beliefs. Therefor, they must be right as well, yes? China has spent who knows how much trying to suppress or wipe out religions in their occupied areas, killing priests and sometimes burning them alive for trying to protect the temples.

If dying for their beliefs makes someone right, then I'll add pagans, Buddhists, atheists... well, a whole lot of paths to the list of things that are right.

The apostles didnt just die for what they belived to be true, they died for what they knew to be true. Big difference. The apostles knew whether they were preaching the truth or not. They knew if Jesus had risen, they claim to have eaten and spoken with him. To die for a belief which turns out to be wrong is one thing, to willingly die for what you know to be a lie is another. You have to ask yourself if you think the various apostles would die the way they did knowing that Jesus hadnt really risen, their may be plenty of people out their who would die for their beliefs and that alone dosn't make them true, but i bet there arnt many who would die for what they knew was a lie.

 

[Jaymes]

Except that everyone across history has died for things they knew to be true as well. Knowing something and it actually being true are two different things.

 

[Steve]

The apostles didnt just die for what they belived to be true, they died for what they knew to be true. Big difference. The apostles knew whether they were preaching the truth or not. They knew if Jesus had risen, they claim to have eaten and spoken with him. To die for a belief which turns out to be wrong is one thing, to willingly die for what you know to be a lie is another. You have to ask yourself if you think the various apostles would die the way they did knowing that Jesus hadnt really risen, their may be plenty of people out their who would die for their beliefs and that alone dosn't make them true, but i bet there arnt many who would die for what they knew was a lie.

Except that everyone across history has died for things they knew to be true as well. Knowing something and it actually being true are two different things.

No many have died for things they belived to be true. knowing something and beliving somthing are two different things.

As i stated befor - The apostles didnt just die for what they belived to be true, they died for what they knew to be true. Big difference. The apostles knew whether they were preaching the truth or not. They knew if Jesus had risen, they claim to have eaten and spoken with him.

The apostles died for somthing they either knew was either true or false. Either the group all decided to make up a lie and go out and be beaten and eventually killed for it, or they really did meet the resurected Christ and therefor went through what they did.

 

[Jaymes]

Except they didn't believe it to be true; they knew it, just as others have. If they weren't completely convinced that something was true, they wouldn't have died for it. I'll say it again: You can know something and be wrong. When I was younger, I just absolutely knew there was an alligator in our pond. I swore it up and down, and wouldn't be told otherwise for anything. There never was, though, even though I just knew it was true.

 

[Steve]

Except they didn't believe it to be true; they knew it, just as others have. If they weren't completely convinced that something was true, they wouldn't have died for it.

I agree.

I'll say it again: You can know something and be wrong. When I was younger, I just absolutely knew there was an alligator in our pond. I swore it up and down, and wouldn't be told otherwise for anything. There never was, though, even though I just knew it was true.

I disagree.
You didnt know their was an alligator in your pond, you belived there was. For you to have known it their must have been irrefutable evidence that you came across to change your belief to knowledge. The apostles had such evidence, would you claim that the whole group could have been mistaken about whether or not they had infact all eaten and spoken with the risen Christ and seen him on a number of various occasions?
Again they either lied about meeting with Christ or they really did. Its your choice as to whether you belive they would willingly die for what they knew was not true.

 

[Ryan2065]

You didnt know their was an alligator in your pond, you belived there was. For you to have known it their must have been irrefutable evidence that you came across to change your belief to knowledge. The apostles had such evidence, would you claim that the whole group could have been mistaken about whether or not they had infact all eaten and spoken with the risen Christ and seen him on a number of various occasions?
Again they either lied about meeting with Christ or they really did. Its your choice as to whether you belive they would willingly die for what they knew was not true.

Im wondering, are there any reliable sources (meaning something other than the bible) that says these people died for their faith? Just a curious thought...

Also, if death meant that the religion was right then I would say according to modern day the Jewish people are the right ones in light of the holocoust.

And steve, just to let you know, the definition of "know" is this....
To regard as true beyond all doubt.

So someone can know something and have it still be wrong. Like the apostles

 

[Steve]

Also, if death meant that the religion was right then I would say according to modern day the Jewish people are the right ones in light of the holocoust.

????? are you even able to follow an argument?????
I havnt asserted that dying for somthing makes it true, rather it dosnt make sense for the apostles to die for somthing that they knew was a lie. As i said to Jensa - would you claim that the whole group could have been mistaken about whether or not they had infact all eaten and spoken with the risen Christ and seen him on a number of various occasions?

And steve, just to let you know, the definition of "know" is this....
To regard as true beyond all doubt.

So someone can know something and have it still be wrong. Like the apostles

Well im not sure where you got your definition,

Heres some definitions from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=know&x=15&y=9

1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : [size=-1]DISCERN[/size] b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>


Also are you trying to tell me their is no difference between beliving somthing and knowing somthing? If i told you that i had can drive a car you may belive me but if i drive it to your house and then take you for a drive you now know it.
The apostles didnt just belive Jesus rose from the dead, they had many practical irrefutable experience's which from that point on they knew he had risen. After they claimed such experience's, we can only conclude that they made the whole thing up or were telling the truth. Again - Its your choice as to whether you belive they would willingly die for what they knew was not true.

 

[Fluffy]

As i stated befor - The apostles didnt just die for what they belived to be true, they died for what they knew to be true. Big difference. The apostles knew whether they were preaching the truth or not.

Fine. Prove it with irrefutable proof and then we will all know that the above is true. At the moment you are simply holding your own statements and the statements of men who died thousands of years ago to very different standards of validity.

What is the irrefutable proof that these men experienced and what is the difference between somebody who experiences irrefutable proof and somebody who thinks they have experienced irrefutable proof?

 

[Jaymes]

I didn't just believe there was alligator, I had seen things that I was convinced was an alligator. Looking back I'm sure they were other things, but at the time I was convinced it was an alligator. Same as that time I 'saw' a pteradactyl. I have a very clear memory of looking up and seeing the outline and tail of what I had seen on documentaries about dinosaurs, and for several years I just knew I had seen the last one left, even though that's obviously impossible. What I saw I considered evidence; after all, I had seen it with my own eyes!

 

[Ryan2065]

you didnt answer my question steve... Ill post it again, maybe you missed it...

Im wondering, are there any reliable sources (meaning something other than the bible) that says these people died for their faith? Just a curious thought...

Also, my statement about dieing for faith was not directed at you. That was directed at AV1611. Wasn't clear on that, though good job at jumping to the defensive and trying your best to make me look bad so you could dodge my question. Now, answer my question please =)

And as far as argueing over the definition of knowing something... Jensa is using one definition, you are using another... the word means more than one thing... I would think you could follow that much. Check dictionary.com if you don't believe me on the definition. Trust me, it means both =)

 

[Fluffy]

And as far as argueing over the definition of knowing something... Jensa is using one definition, you are using another... the word means more than one thing... I would think you could follow that much. Check dictionary.com if you don't believe me on the definition. Trust me, it means both =)

Really? I feel that they are using the same definition. They both agree that it takes irrefutable proof in order to know something. Steve is simply asserting that these men did experience irrefutable proof whereas Jensa is describing how it is possible to convince yourself that you have experienced irrefutable proof. From Steve's posts, it seems he believes there is a meaningful difference between the two with regards to a person's actions (sorry if I have misinterpreted you though, Steve).

 

[Ryan2065]

Really? I feel that they are using the same definition. They both agree that it takes irrefutable proof in order to know something. Steve is simply asserting that these men did experience irrefutable proof whereas Jensa is describing how it is possible to convince yourself that you have experienced irrefutable proof. From Steve's posts, it seems he believes there is a meaningful difference between the two with regards to a person's actions (sorry if I have misinterpreted you though, Steve).

From dictionary.com ....

know [font=verdana,sans-serif][/font]

1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor” (William Faulkner).
6. 1. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
   2. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
8. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
9. Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.

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.