Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
1 Paul had experiences of visions of Jesus
2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true
3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus
One of the problems in the understanding of this topic by many Christians is that they do not realize that apologists are not scholars.Straw man fallacy, and I am being polite because the forum rules forbid a candid appraisal of that claim. There is a scholarly consensus that the gospels are anonymous, and no credible scholar can offer any independent validation for any of it, beyond the crucifixion. Your list offered people's subjective beliefs. just because someone is an historical biblical scholar, does not mean their subjective beliefs are historically valid. This is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.
Which is evidence that Paul and the authors of the gospels had different primary sources.
Nobody knows who wrote the gospels, and Paul never met nor did he know Jesus. You are just making up wild assumptions. Though how exactly having multiple hearsay sources strengthens the claims is baffling?
You still have this annoying tendency of ignoring the point of my comment and make a bunch of random and unrelated claims.
All I am saying is that the fact that none of the gospels mentioned the 500 strongly suggest that the authors of the gospels didn't copied from Paul. (Nor had Paul as a source)
So ether agree or refute this particular point.
Answers such as "nobody knows who wrote the gospels " are just irrelevant and dishonest red harings intended to avoid the original point
However, while Christianity was undoubtedly tainted by European imperialism, I'd argue that the true source of that problem was imperialism rather than Christianity.
I think the problem in this instance, is that @ElishaElijah doesn't seem to understand that while an apologist can be a scholar, it doesn't mean every opinion they offer is scholarly. It is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy. Like creationists who claim "scientists" deny species evolution, when they may not have any knowledge of species evolution, like a deeply religious humanities teacher, teaching infant school, who they are referring to as a scientist.One of the problems in the understanding of this topic by many Christians is that they do not realize that apologists are not scholars.
There is no evidence for any eyewitnesses, and the gospels are anonymous, the names were made up and assigned in order to give the appearance they were written by disciples.What is wrong with the story being repeated and added to because of other information?
Why do you say they were merely repeating oral tradition and none appear to be eye witnesses. How do you figure this out.
Which part of John is from Mark? Why is it improbably that John and Mark's source (probably Peter) would not have seen the same things?
Sheldon said: ↑
Indeed, there are 45k varyingly different sects and denominations globally within the umbrella term Christian. Which suggest the bible that they all cite, is about as reliable as a chocolate skateboard in the desert.
Most of them believe in the same Jesus and the same gospel. No problem.
The variations in the teaching in the minor issues is not so important and is nowhere near 45K.
True... BUT... He is preaching the resurrection. So, obviously, he must have know what happened.
You're kidding right? If I describe Elvis's face exactly, does this mean I must have had a pint with him last night?
Are you saying you don't believe he existed, the people who saw him didn't see him, that the articles about him by those who were with him were all made up?
"Are you saying you don't believe he existed,"
the people who saw him didn't see him
the articles about him by those who were with him were all made up?
- This betrays your understanding of why it is not pseudepigrapha. I would suggest you look at the opposing views before adopting this position. To my point, which stares starkly against yours is: 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed - He is a witness, states that he wrote it.
Wikipedia is NOT a source. It is a viewpoint of who wrote it.
Please look for a counter point in as much as Wikipedia is NOT a source. It is the viewpoint of him who wrote it.
It is clear that your statement did not address my point. He was killing Christians and then preached Jesus. He stated in his writings that the whole of the message is based on the resurrection of Jesus. You will have to be more convincing that referencing an irrelevant point
Again... back to the point. "Let's just eliminate all witnesses, their statements and a thorough review" and then say "What do you have to convince me?" . A very weak position.
Who do you think he spoke to when he said "eye-witnesses"?
And how many letters were expressed that were anti-Luke/Acts saying they were false? None -- except for people living in the 20/21st century. A flat-earth position
Apples and oranges. We might as well say that the documents of Declaration of Independence is a fabric of our imagination.
Because it eradicates all that was written between 0AD and 300AD which have a more "been there or was close to there" application. If I were to review you 2000 years ago, I might hold to the position you were a bot.
Again... Just erase history so that we can establish our viewpoint.
Ignoring facts and history
So... we have established that you really weren't asking but rather simply enumerating your position (which is fine) but you certainly haven't presented a case that would cut the mustard.
Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?
There is historic evidence if you accept the gospel writers as being who the evidence shows them to be. (Matthew and John, apostles. Luke, the companion of Paul and who got his gospel information from witnesses and others who had been there from the beginning. Mark, a companion of Peter)
Scientifically there is a presumption that all things can be answered naturalistically. So there is no acceptance in scientific thinking just as there is no acceptance of the witness reports in sceptical thinking.
If science cannot explain it away with natural laws then science still does not call it a miracle.
We have witnesses of crucifixion and witnesses of resurrection.
A robbery took place and you have multiple witnesses. The witnesses give their story and it is recorded. 2000 years later, a person wants to know what really happened but they can't use the eye-witness recorded stories. And even corroborating outside sources are also non-admissible. Is this really fair?
There is no proof for any historic matter.
The resurrection of Christ is proven by the fact that Christ is still within us and among us, to this day. Jesus, the man, however, is not.
You made a bare appeal to numbers, that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy, here it is again:That has nothing to do with argumentum ad populum fallacy. That fallacy is when you point to most scholars and claim that what they say must be right because it is most scholars.
Brian2 said: ↑
The Bible is not a book written by a single author, so one author can verify another.
Sheldon said: ↑
The gospel author or authors are unknown, the names Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictitious, and were assigned centuries later, to make it appear as if they authored by disciples.
If that is what happened they would not have had Mark or Luke.
But really it is the unquestioned existence of Paul and his proximity to the life of Jesus which verifies the life and death of Jesus.
Paul never met nor knew Jesus. His claims are mostly subjective opinion after the fact, hearsay in other words.
Nevertheless Paul did not start believing in a Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead if he knew that Jesus did not exist and was not crucified.
Nobody witnessed the resurrection, not even the original apostles. However they all are witnesses of the resurrected Jesus after His crucifixion.
But Christ IS within us and among us, and anyone can see that for themselves if they understand what Christ is, and they are willing to look.So then, no, there is no proof of a resurrection, since, to our knowledge, Christ isn't within us or among us.
You only think it's trivial because you refuse to recognize the fundamental importance of it. You bias against religion is blinding you to a very simple and obvious truth. Just as the bias of some religionists do the same to them.That's a poetic way to say that the idea of Christ lingers, but that's a trivial observation irrelevant to the truth of resurrection or an actual referent somewhere outside of the heads of believers corresponding to that belief.
People troll all the time. It’s not new.Nevertheless Paul did not start believing in a Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead if he knew that Jesus did not exist and was not crucified.
Find us a source that predates it.Presuming that Jesus prophecies about the temple destruction are wrong and so the date of the authorship of the synoptics is after 70AD
No true Scotsman fallacy, irrational arguments are weak arguments.Christ IS within us and among us, and anyone can see that for themselves if they understand what Christ is, and they are willing to look.