Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[PRmerger]

And yet… you don’t consider it as holy… interesting…

That is because of …

the Incarnation.

We can approach the Godhead, in fact, we can become One with the Godhead.

So not only do we say His Name, we join Him and are One Body, One Flesh with Him.

The veil in the Temple was torn because of the Atonement.

Please read up on that before you ask anymore questions, ok?

Not trying to be snippy, but that’s some basic and fundamental stuff that you’re asking.

 

[Gorgias]

Our Universe could have been created from a model… of which god could himself be a part.
Can we rule out this possibility?

Yes, and very simply. By definition, a ‘god’ who is part of creation is not ‘God’. So, all you’ve done is pushed the discussion up a level: in your construct, we have the same problem – who created the model?

Incarnation?
You know, around here, this word comes from “carne”, which means “meat”… the body… incarnation would be going into some meaty body… a material body… how would people become transcendent then?
Is it because there is material beyond the Universe?

No – you’re just missing the jargon, here. PR’s talking about the “Incarnation of Jesus”, through which the 2nd Person of God – that is, the Logos – was born as a human, becoming fully man and fully divine.

So, Necessary is “cannot fail to exist”?
Must be a pre-condition for the existence of this Universe, as he’s the one that creates it.

No – this is ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ in the philosophical sense.

Did he really create time?
I thought we agreed that he created the Universe.

Time is part of the Universe; it’s the ‘space-time continuum’, remember?

If the Universe is in a sub-sample of the infinite space-time (not even restricting this to the usual 3+1D… could be any dimensionality in here), then he may have just used the time that was already available.

There’s no ‘time’ without ‘space’ as a sub-stratum. We can’t have ‘time’ (as we know it) without some material existence through which it operates.

Am I wrong to admit the possibility that some form of space and time exists beyond the Universe?

You can change the definition of ‘universe’, if you wish, to be some sub-set of ‘Creation’; but, that doesn’t help you – we’re talking about “all of Creation” here, so sectioning it off doesn’t help you argue against God as creator of all Creation.

 

[pocaracas]

Why are you conflating ‘personality’ with ‘soul’? They’re not the same thing at all! (In fact, if we want to assent to the ‘nature/nurture’ spectrum, then by definition, personality must be dependent (at least in part) to our physical, embodied experiences!)

Then what is the soul?
It appears fallen from the sky in the things I read…
And it appears to be extremely overlapping with the mind. At the most basic point, it can be the personality.
You tell me, then… what is a soul.

Again, you’re adding the ‘personality’ strawman to the argument. I double-checked the Feser citation you provided; nowhere does he use the word ‘personality’ in that mind-body essay …

No, he doesn’t… he doesn’t even define soul… just assumes it’s something that’s there. Something that’s between animals and angels… angels?! -.-’

For a believer, it’s obvious.

For a non-believer, there’s still the sense of ‘transcendent purpose’ – that is, of doing something that will persist long after the body dies – that says that “limited biological existence” is only a portion of what we feel drawn to and made for…!

The something persists… like Mozart’s music. The person doesn’t.
But, to hear believers talk of it, it’s sounds a lot like the person does persist, the mental part of the person, if not the bodily one, for obvious reasons.

Of course things are obvious, for believers…
If I believe the moon is made of cheese, it’s obvious that it stinks! But the more it stinks, the better it tastes!

 

[Gorgias]

Why can’t a material thing create material?
A human can create another human.
A tree can create more trees.
A crystal can create more crystals, just like the original one.

How can you say anything about the materialness of something beyond our Universe?

Nothing in the material world creates anything. Oh, I’ll grant you that it transforms things, through natural and man-made processes:

a human ‘creates’ another human through a natural process that requires the pre-existent material of sperm and egg.

A tree ‘creates’ more trees through similar (but asexual) processes that transform energy to produce matter (e.g., acorns which grow, then drop, then sprout).

A crystal ‘creates’ more crystals by affecting the material around it.

However – in none of these examples is matter or energy created from scratch. That’s what we’re claiming about God: that He created all of the universe – all that physically exists – and He created it from no prior material or energy. That is, God is the only ‘Creator’, in the true sense of the word. We’re all just Transformers, not Creators.

 

[Gorgias]

You tell me, then… what is a soul.

Check out this discussion of what a soul is.

But, to hear believers talk of it, it’s sounds a lot like the person does persist, the mental part of the person, if not the bodily one, for obvious reasons.

Not the ‘mental part’, if by that, you mean the brain. We’re not making the claim that we’ll be doing physical ratiocination after we die (although, since we believe that we will, again, have a body in the eschaton, we do believe that we’ll be conscious in the same way we are now – as an embodied human – in eternity.

Of course things are obvious, for believers…
If I believe the moon is made of cheese, it’s obvious that it stinks! But the more it stinks, the better it tastes!

Don’t be so hasty to pin things only on believers – there are things that are ‘obvious’ to you, too, as a non-believer (and these things stink and still taste good to you)!

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that it’s normal for people to tell a story exactly as it was told to them by someone else?

Oh, geez. Are we back here again?

Your Team Atheist member, Bradski, already put the nail in the coffin on this one.

People don’t die for a lie.

As far as telling a story exactly as it was told to them…no. Sometimes people embellish.

But I am certain that there are folks who don’t lie about seeing their Beloved, whom they thought was dead, alive again.

Isn’t there an old saying about this?.. who tells a tale adds a tail.

Cute. I like. Homonyms. Clever.

The “rule” is a description of the actual rule observed to be at work in Nature.
I thought you could tell the two apart…

LOL!

And what do you think religious rules are?

Why the double standard again, poca?

“We get to assert rules, and everyone understands that even if it’s a man who said it, it’s actually just a presentation of what IS…but when Believers assert rules, it’s just arbitrary, man-made legalism stuff.”

Think about it, when this happens to a teen in a muslim country… if he speaks up and declares he’s an atheist… he gets killed. What do you think that does for the numbers of atheists in those regions’ statistics?

Oh, it’s dramatically lowered, to be sure!

That’s a curious statement, considering how popular such expressions seem to have become in certain locations:

• Lourdes
• Fátima
• Medjugorje

That’s begging the question again.

You sure do that a lot!

No one said it’s easy. That’s why some people become depressed upon realizing this.

I know, right. It is a bleak and dismal way to live one’s life.

It’s a problem for atheists, this problem of evil.

One with no solution.

But it does give you a better appreciation of the one life you have… and of everyone else’s lives.

I don’t think so…

If it makes little to no difference between dying at age 20 or 80, then why hang around here? there’s an eternity of bliss on the other side, huh?

Because our life is a gift. And, as you say below, most people are rather fond of their own lives.

Then you need to impose special cases such that suicide is a sin and you wouldn’t be welcomed on the other side…

I don’t know what you mean here.

According to Bart Ehrman, there was an early (heretical, of course) christianity sect that explored this detail that this life is ultimately worthless.
Luckily, most people are rather fond of their own lives… a little thing that comes from evolution - stay alive for as long as you can! (unless some altruistic reason comes up, in which things become difficult to judge)

Indeed. And it makes no sense for an atheist to give up his life for another.

Atheism certainly thrwarts altruism.

In fact, I’ve never heard of an atheistic equivalent to Maximilian Kolbe…someone who stepped up, offered his life for a complete stranger, out of love.

To be sure, atheists can be heroes. But there’s no atheistic equivalent of Kolbe–someone who stepped up to the plate and offered his life in pure agape.

I’d disagree. Believers claim that there is an all-powerful, all-loving, all-good being out there.
This being cares about them, loves them, wants all good, has the power to do all good… yet seems to allow some evil.
It seems to be a paradox.

Do you think a loving father who holds down his son so he can receive his vaccinations is a paradox?

If no such entity exists, then things are as they are.
Earthquakes are a reality of our dynamic planet. We evolved on this planet and are not going anywhere else, soon. We must hang on to it, deal with it, accept it.

That’s a big problem for you.

Tell that to your 10 yr old son when his cousin dies.

Not a very satisfying answer.

 

[pocaracas]

What? Huh?

God didn’t exist, and then creates himself?

What the what???

Aren’t we talking about the god that created this Universe? The one about which we can tell little else?
Why couldn’t that god be itself in some sort of material extra-universe?

What makes you think people become transcendent?

Isn’t that what you were saying?
I’m getting confused…

And since it does, it needs an explanation.

Yes… one that people are eager to provide… even if they have no way of coming to know it.
Sometimes, people bite more than they can chew!

Yes. Because the Universe, by definition, is all space, time, matter and energy.

Funny… I never heard that definition…
Unless you make it as: all known space, time, matter and energy.

Can you agree that this extra word makes all the difference? (and makes the definition more accurate)

Well, if you can refute the 20 Arguments for God’s existence, let’s hear them out!

I addressed one of them earlier.
Got an alternative option for the conclusion, based on information lacking in the premises… All I got was derision of that information… If you can’t accept QCD as valid, then why should I continue to go through the other arguments, knowing that occasionally, I’ll have to resort to the same QCD that you guys rather assume isn’t real?

###########

Time has always existed?

Think about this, poca.

Mathematically.

If time exists in the infinite in the past, then we would never be able to get to the present moment.

However, we exist in the present moment.

Therefore, time cannot be infinitely in the past.

#logicagain

Your logic fails.
At any point in the infinite timeline, you can arbitrarily define a 0 and start from there.
The big bang of our Universe defined the 0 point for our Universe… but it need not be the only 0 point out there.

Your logic sounds a lot like Zeno’s “paradox” of the turtle and Achiles…

 

[pocaracas]

What a shame. I thought you were giving us something that we could work with. You’ve got a problem, though: either your definition of ‘rule’ is something that only works in Nature (which, due to God’s transcendence, can never apply to Him), or you’ve just proven our case (and blown your case to bits): after all, what we’ve done is exactly analogous to what you’ve done – provided a man-made description of an actual state at work (that is, the state of God’s existence).

You asked for an example of a rule that’s not man-made.
I provided.
That’s all… good day!

The rule I provided works within the Universe, yes…
Nature… may be something that goes beyond the Universe. At least, I’d define it in that direction.

We can. I’m left wondering whether you can, too, since you walked right into that one…

Walked into what one?
The fact that the rule doesn’t apply to a god is no fault of the rule that was asked for.

It drives them underground or convinces them to lie about what they truly believe (or disbelieve, as it were).

Indeed… And the census says: 0% non-beleivers.
Can we believe such census?

Wait – so, what you’re trying to sell us is a worldview that is just as unproven and unprovable (empirically, that is!) as Christianity, but which is terribly depressing and holds out no hope, and leads to despair? Umm… no thanks.

No. I’m not selling anything. I’m providing my point of view. If you pay money for it, then ask for it back.
Do I sound like a depressed person, full of despair and no hope?
I certainly hope I don’t!

But I agree that some people can fall into depression due to the realization of how finite and small each of us is, when compared to the enormity of the Universe… and how meaningless any action can be in the whole Universe.

No, that’s not it at all. Instead, from a Christian’s perspective, life is a gift from God, and it’s not something that we should arbitrarily take or throw away. You’re not the only one who realizes the value of the life we live, you know…

I know… it’s just that some value it a bit more.
my dick’s bigger than yours!

Not what the Church teaches, but hey… keep showing us your strawmen – this is entertaining! :sad_yes:

Perhaps you could drop that and educate me on what the church teaches about suicide and its consequences in the afterlife.
Perhaps my “starwmen” stem from a lack of education, hmmmm?

You’re talking about the Bart Ehrman who started off believing in the fundamentalist literalist interpretation of the Bible, and then, when he discovered that it wasn’t a science book / history book / 100% literalistic work, threw the whole thing away? Yeah… that’s good scholarship…

Is that an “ad hominem”?

It isn’t, really, once you realize that He values free will above all as the means that enable us to freely accept and love Him. Without free will, you can have your ‘perfect’ universe, filled with ‘perfect’ robots who cannot act in any way as moral agents. Again, you can have that construct; it’s not in the least appealing or persuasive.

I remember mentioning the evil in natural disasters and plagues as a way to avoid that “free will” thing…
Try again, maybe?

 

[pocaracas]

Another way to show that time having an infinite past is a logical contradiction is this, borrowing from Apologist Trent Horn:

Imagine that you want to display your marble collection. You want to display them when you’ve counted all of them.

So if you have 12 marbles, you will display them pretty quickly.

If you have a million marbles, it will take quite a long time to get to the day when you can display them. But you would, eventually, get to the day.

But if you have an infinite number of marbles, you will never get to the day when you display your marbles. There will always be one more marble to count.

But I see your marble display. (That is, in this parallel, equal to “TODAY”. Today is happening, therefore that means you’ve displayed your marbles).

Therefore, I can conclude that you didn’t have an infinite number of marbles.

Awesome… marbles are time, now…
Next analogy, time is money.
Keep providing analogies for one of the most difficult things to properly define…

 

[pocaracas]

Yes, and very simply. By definition, a ‘god’ who is part of creation is not ‘God’. So, all you’ve done is pushed the discussion up a level: in your construct, we have the same problem – who created the model?

Perhaps it’s just a level… but it’s the level that PR agreed to.
The creator god. The one that created the Universe we know of. The one people arrive at when they follow those arguments he has in his website.

Can you then say anything about the “extra-Universe” where this god may reside?

No – you’re just missing the jargon, here. PR’s talking about the “Incarnation of Jesus”, through which the 2nd Person of God – that is, the Logos – was born as a human, becoming fully man and fully divine.

Cheers for the correction!

There’s no ‘time’ without ‘space’ as a sub-stratum. We can’t have ‘time’ (as we know it) without some material existence through which it operates.

Yes… I don’t see what you’re arguing with in there… all I was saying is that the “extra-Universe” could have a different dimensionality than our own… instead of 3+1D (3 spatial and one temporal), it could be, say, 6+3D, or 12+1D… why not?

You can change the definition of ‘universe’, if you wish, to be some sub-set of ‘Creation’; but, that doesn’t help you – we’re talking about “all of Creation” here, so sectioning it off doesn’t help you argue against God as creator of all Creation.

How can you tell that there’s a creator of all “creation”?
From the arguments we have available, we can maybe have a creator of this Universe… and I’m rolling with that creator god, for the sake of argument. Beyond that, it’s a wildcard. Or is it?

 

[pocaracas]

Nothing in the material world creates anything. Oh, I’ll grant you that it transforms things, through natural and man-made processes:

a human ‘creates’ another human through a natural process that requires the pre-existent material of sperm and egg.

A tree ‘creates’ more trees through similar (but asexual) processes that transform energy to produce matter (e.g., acorns which grow, then drop, then sprout).

A crystal ‘creates’ more crystals by affecting the material around it.

However – in none of these examples is matter or energy created from scratch. That’s what we’re claiming about God: that He created all of the universe – all that physically exists – and He created it from no prior material or energy. That is, God is the only ‘Creator’, in the true sense of the word. We’re all just Transformers, not Creators.

Yes… there’s a recycling of materials, but the overall thing is a new created object. That’s how the word “create” was developed, you know?
Could the creator god just be reusing material from his extra-Universe?

 

[pocaracas]

Check out this discussion of what a soul is.

That was easy… so it says " The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom".
I assume this doesn’t mean consciousness as in being awake (not unconscious).
So, we are then led to the hard problem of consciousness… much has been written about it… there is even disagreement among atheists. I’m of the practical sort: it’s all in your brain. The brain is complex enough, apparently, to handle it all. No, there is no hard evidence for any position, that’s why it’s called “the hard problem”.

Not the ‘mental part’, if by that, you mean the brain. We’re not making the claim that we’ll be doing physical ratiocination after we die (although, since we believe that we will, again, have a body in the eschaton, we do believe that we’ll be conscious in the same way we are now – as an embodied human – in eternity.

Are you saying there’s no reasoning in the afterlife? no thought?
Just consciousness, awareness and all that?
I’m guessing you mean something more intricate, but you kept yourself from writing it…

 

[pocaracas]

Oh, geez. Are we back here again?

Your Team Atheist member, Bradski, already put the nail in the coffin on this one.

People don’t die for a lie.

As far as telling a story exactly as it was told to them…no. Sometimes people embellish.

But I am certain that there are folks who don’t lie about seeing their Beloved, whom they thought was dead, alive again.

Have we ever left?
There’s no such thing as Team Atheist… we just happen to agree in some things, on of them being our lack of belief.
Whatever stems from that is done independently.

Wow… did you… did you just… say that people embellish their stories?

What happens when the embellished story gets retold?
Could not further consecutive embellishments lead to a story where some people claim that their beloved died and then live? (do note that the people claimed things about their beloved are in the story, not the storytellers)

Cute. I like. Homonyms. Clever.

You had never heard this?

And what do you think religious rules are?

Why the double standard again, poca?

“We get to assert rules, and everyone understands that even if it’s a man who said it, it’s actually just a presentation of what IS…but when Believers assert rules, it’s just arbitrary, man-made legalism stuff.”

Are you saying that religions present things as they are?
How come there are so many religions, then?
Whatever is, is… why all the competing, non-overlapping “interpretations”?

Also, speaking of double standard… why would you accept rules from one religion and not another?

That’s begging the question again.

I keep begging for a question that never comes…

I know, right. It is a bleak and dismal way to live one’s life.

It’s a problem for atheists, this problem of evil.

One with no solution.

The problem of evil, for atheists, is non-existent.
No evil is perceived in the workings of Nature, for no good is expected to flow from it.
Only indifference.

I face reality as it is… or rather, as it presents itself to me.
I’d very much like there to be an all-good overseer… but I don’t see it.

I don’t think so…

Try it… Maybe you better not…

Because our life is a gift. And, as you say below, most people are rather fond of their own lives.

Why, would you say, are people so fond of their own lives, regardless of belief system or lack of it?

I don’t know what you mean here.

Don’t worry, Gorgias already addressed it. He’s on it!

Indeed. And it makes no sense for an atheist to give up his life for another.

Atheism certainly thrwarts altruism.

In fact, I’ve never heard of an atheistic equivalent to Maximilian Kolbe…someone who stepped up, offered his life for a complete stranger, out of love.

To be sure, atheists can be heroes. But there’s no atheistic equivalent of Kolbe–someone who stepped up to the plate and offered his life in pure agape.

I’ve never heard of anyone doing that either… Not sure you would do it… most certainly, I wouldn’t do it… unless the person being spared meant something greater to me… perhaps a son?

Why, would you say, a son would mean something greater to me than my own life?

Do you think a loving father who holds down his son so he can receive his vaccinations is a paradox?

I think one who kills his son isn’t so loving.

That’s a big problem for you.

Tell that to your 10 yr old son when his cousin dies.

Not a very satisfying answer.

The goal is not to satisfy. It’s to convey our understanding of the events we witness.
It would certainly be awesome if this life was just a step towards eternal bliss… but is it really?

 

[Bradski]

Did Josephus believe in Jesus’ Resurrection based on the oral testimony of 500 people according to Paul? If so, did he convert to Christianity? If not, why not?

Just pointing out…again…that there was no oral testimony of 500 people.

So when he wrote that, where were all the folks who said, “Hey, you said people in my community saw him. Where are these people? I don’t know of a single person who’s actually said he’s seen the risen Jesus.”

If any of them existed, they were 1200kms away (and thirty odd years older). Do you think maybe that Paul’s letter was serialised in the Ephesus Daily Bugle which was, of course, translated and then shipped off overseas as a matter of course and was regular reading material for everyone in Jerusalem and surrounding areas. And maybe some guy picks up a copy while he’s waiting for the wheel to be replaced on his cart and thinks: ‘Hang on, I haven’t heard about this and I was in the area about then. Martha, I must travel to Ephesus and confront this fraudster!’

The more this conversation about this topic goes on, the more it resembles a Python sketch. I can perfectly well imagine Michael Palin being the guy reading the paper and getting all hot under the collar. I think it’s safe to say that when an argument begins to resemble a satirical comedy sketch, then it has failed.

This text occurred within a generation of the event. Most of the folks who could have proven the writer to be mistaken would have still been around. Where’s* their *testimony that this author was mistaken?

Go back and read post 372.

 

[meltzerboy]

Already did.

Something that creates material cannot…by logic and reason…be material.

If God created matter, time, space, energy, God cannot be made of matter, time, space and energy.

He has to transcend MTSE.

It’s just common sense, poca.

As a believer, I of course agree with you, PR. But did you ever stop a moment to really think about what you just said: G-d transcends matter, time, space, and energy; He is made of none of these things or processes that involve change. Amazing, isn’t it, that the all-powerful, all-knowing, completely merciful and just Being and Creator of the entire universe can consist of none of these elemental processes which comprise all other existence?

 

[meltzerboy]

That is because of …

the Incarnation.

We can approach the Godhead, in fact, we can become One with the Godhead.

So not only do we say His Name, we join Him and are One Body, One Flesh with Him.

The veil in the Temple was torn because of the Atonement.

Please read up on that before you ask anymore questions, ok?

Not trying to be snippy, but that’s some basic and fundamental stuff that you’re asking.

That idea of becoming one with the G-dhead (again) is reminiscent of Hinduism. The atonement in the latter would be the repeated cycle of reincarnations which carry with them the golden opportunity for personal improvement. Hinduism is not based on grace as is Christianity and, of course, there are other major differences between the two religions, but it seems to me the notion of converging oneness with the G-dhead is similar.

 

[meltzerboy]

Just pointing out…again…that there was no oral testimony of 500 people.

If any of them existed, they were 1200kms away (and thirty odd years older). Do you think maybe that Paul’s letter was serialised in the Ephesus Daily Bugle which was, of course, translated and then shipped off overseas as a matter of course and was regular reading material for everyone in Jerusalem and surrounding areas. And maybe some guy picks up a copy while he’s waiting for the wheel to be replaced on his cart and thinks: ‘Hang on, I haven’t heard about this and I was in the area about then. Martha, I must travel to Ephesus and confront this fraudster!’

The more this conversation about this topic goes on, the more it resembles a Python sketch. I can perfectly well imagine Michael Palin being the guy reading the paper and getting all hot under the collar. I think it’s safe to say that when an argument begins to resemble a satirical comedy sketch, then it has failed.

Go back and read post 372.

No oral testimony of 500 people even according to what St. Paul wrote?

 

[Peter_Plato]

My apologies. I didn’t realise there was a list of witnesses. I assumed that he just said that there were 500 or so and that there was no additional information.

And I guess Ephesus isn’t that far from Jerusalem (closer, actually than Dallas is to Chicago). So if someone actually read what Paul wrote (were there many copies?) and assuming he showed it to someone who doubted what he said and could be bothered checking one throw away line of text, all that they had to do was:

First find out who these people were (check Paul’s list I guess. Not sure why he’d feel the need to do it, but wasn’t it good of him to keep all the names and addresses of 500 hundred people for over thirty years. I haven’t got details of anyone that far back).

Then find out if they were still alive thirty or so years after the event (average life expectancy was the mid fourties at the time, so most people who would have been alive would have been teenagers). Although I guess Paul could have helped him out here as he seems to have known that ‘most were still alive’ (I wonder, in passing, how he knew this. The chances are, unless all of the 500 were young teens, that the majority of them would now be dead).

Anyway, then find out if they still lived in the same area (beats me how he’d do this. Not like you can Google the person’s address). But moving on…

Then save a up for the trip of a lifetime. Travel wasn’t cheap and most people never left their own village. No mistake about it. This was a Big Trip. Maybe Paul could lend them the money.

Then give up their job. Well, unless he was independently wealthy, in which case he wouldn’t need to. But who is going to give someone a few months off to look for a bunch of teens from thirty years back and still have the job open when he gets back?

Then leave family and friends and travel 1200kms for a couple of months just to get to the approximate area (plus 1200kms back when he’d finished, of course).

Then spend I don’t know how long looking for someone who was on Paul’s list (are you absolutely sure he had a list?).

If he finds anyone, then he can check to see if they actually knew Jesus or at least knew him by sight and could verify that they physically saw Him (over thirty years ago!) in a situation whereby it was convincing enough to be classed as being beyond reasonable doubt.

Then, eventually, when he gets back, all he needs to do is make sure that his account, whatever it might be, is treated as genuine, recorded in some way and is read by enough people and passed on as a rebuttal of that one throw away line that Paul wrote.

Piece of cake…

Is this what you want to propose, Peter? Seriously?

Well, Brad, it is BOTH worse and better that you propose.

The letter by Paul was written to the Corinthians, not the Ephesians, ergo the congregation was a tad further from Jerusalem than you calculated.

Second, the letter would have been written in AD 52-54, so only about 20 years after the crucifixion (not 30 years), which means very likely more of the witnesses were still alive.

Third, the list names Cephas, the twelve, James and all of the apostles (likely those beyond the twelve who had been followers of Jesus since the beginning of his ministry – otherwise known as “the elders.”) I wasn’t speaking of a list naming the 500, though Paul could have likely named, at least, some names.

Fourth, why must we suppose Paul ONLY mentioned the 500 in this letter? The Resurrection of Jesus was a major theme in his preaching and he wouldn’t have kept it secret. He would have used the fact to convince anyone, anywhere he preached and was probably only reminding the Corinthians of this little fact in the letter. In other words, everyone who heard Paul preach, no matter where they lived – in Jerusalem, in proximity and far away would have heard of the 500. He was a Pharisee, after all, one who himself experienced the risen Christ and one who was very used to “arguing” the case for Jesus. You don’t suppose he would have been shy about relating this little factoid and only did so this once to make the Resurrection sound plausible? My guess is you think there were no skeptics (like yourself) in Corinth who would have challenged him on why he would only bring up the 500 witnesses so far away from the epicentre of the evidence – yup, back in dem days mamas ONLY raised gullible fools and galoots.

No, I guess he would have kept it a secret to his dying day and only could muster up the audacity to write it in one letter to a far flung community whose members would have no way of checking its validity. After all, he wasn’t really sure about the Resurrection and was possibly lying about it – though it is a tad inexplicable why he would spend some thirty-three years (AD 34 or 35 to AD 67) traveling the Empire doing nothing else except talking about the Risen Christ – despite that it got him persecuted, scourged, imprisoned, shipwrecked, beaten, etc. etc., numerous times and ended up being beheaded by the Romans AND despite that he had a bright and promising future as a top scholar as a Pharisee under Gamaliel back in Jerusalem.

Yes, it does seem very plausible that Paul really had NO verifiable evidence that Christ had actually risen, but did everything he did as the result of some odd and unexplainable quirk in his personality.

 

[Bradski]

…why must we suppose Paul ONLY mentioned the 500 in this letter.

So as it now has been shown how ridiculous it is to imagine that a single line in his Gospels could be in any way challenged by anyone thirty years after the event, either by people who were said to have been there or by anyone reading it, we now move the goalposts waaaaay over there and state, without any evidence whatsoever, that this has become a major part of his stump speech:

‘Of course I don’t have individual names of these 500! But I tell you now that I personally spoke to many of them and they were certain beyond any doubt whatsoever that they had seen and experienced the risen Christ! And they told me personally, with tears in their eyes, and with their hands on their hearts, that their friends and members of their families had seen Him also.

These are honest people, sir. Trustworthy. Hard working people. The salt of the earth. Their word is their bond. I would trust my very life to these people and you, sir, dare suggest that they might have lied to me? You dare to make claim that these people, whom you do not even know, are liars and cheats? You dare to deny God?

I ask of you. I ask of you all. What reason would they have? What reason would they have to deceive us? What benefit would they gain? Why would their friends and their own flesh and blood lie to them! Ask yourself these questions. These people were changed by the simple and humbling experience of meeting Jesus. Would they have changed for a lie? Would they have changed if it were not Christ? No! Only a fool would deny what is obvious to all honest men.

I challenge you. And I challenge anyone else who doubts these people. I challenge all who doubt in the glory of God and the fact of everlasting salvation! Travel to Jerusalem. Talk to the witnesses. Learn the truth. Accept Jesus as your saviour and praise the Lord our God Almighty for your very existence!’

See how easy it is? Make a vague statement that can’t be proved and ask someone to deny it. Make a positive out of the negative claims. Ridicule the other person. Add vague details that can’t be challenged yet seem to strengthen your case. Suggest seemingly simple methods to counter your claims but which are virtually impossible. Use the rule of three: Claim, emphasise and declaim!

You show a distinct lack of imagination in believing that people cannot be convinced of many things that have zero evidence with a few simple rhetorical tricks, a platform, some basic psychology and a good speaking voice. I’m sure you could think of many examples.

But of course, as I said, we have zero evidence that he ever felt the need to make such a speech. So your proposal is summarily dismissed as wishful thinking, brought up to pad out the paucity of your original argument.

Unless you have anything to show otherwise, the evidence that we have before us is one line in the Gospels. And examining that, as it stands, the undeniable conclusion is that, as evidence for the resurrection, it is worthless.

 

[PRmerger]

That idea of becoming one with the G-dhead (again) is reminiscent of Hinduism.

Perhaps.

The atonement in the latter would be the repeated cycle of reincarnations which carry with them the golden opportunity for personal improvement. Hinduism is not based on grace as is Christianity and, of course, there are other major differences between the two religions, but it seems to me the notion of converging oneness with the G-dhead is similar.

There are many similarities in religions.