Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[St_Redemption]

The evidence presented by Randy (which I have encountered before) for me acts as a solidifier, a conformation of sorts. I don’t believe that it offers conclusive proof but to me it is enough to see that my faith could certainly have had a basis in history. I then place that onto my other reasons and see that it fits.

 

[PRmerger]

The evidence presented by Randy (which I have encountered before) for me acts as a solidifier, a conformation of sorts. I don’t believe that it offers conclusive proof but to me it is enough to see that my faith could certainly have had a basis in history. I then place that onto my other reasons and see that it fits.

Indeed.

Each argument, by itself, has strengths, and indeed a few weaknesses, but all of the arguments together make a formidable argument for the Resurrection, as well as the existence of God.

The balance of arguments for the Resurrection simply outweighs, by far, the arguments against it.

http://www.roamingscholars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/uneven-balance-scale.jpg

 

[Bradski]

So then you’re back to They were Liars.

But you and Bradski have already acknowledged that they didn’t lie.

So when Peter said that there was a ‘list of 500 people’, was he telling the truth?

 

[PRmerger]

So when Peter said that there was a ‘list of 500 people’, was he telling the truth?

I’m pretty sure he wasn’t speaking in a way that was to be interpreted as a fundamentalist would.

So, in other words, yes, he was speaking the truth.

In the same way that someone would be speaking the truth when he says that there are 2500 families in our parish. And that there’s a list of them.

But it turns out that it’s actually 2432 families.

Would you be one of those folks who told him, “Oh, so you lied”?

 

[humble_catholic]

Why is that, I wonder?..

I’d go for people that study the brain and who do actual NDE studies…
If there’s none of those, then we best withhold judgement until there are, don’t you think?

His argument is that the methodology was sloppy.
With sloppy methodology, you can arrive at any conclusion… specially if you’re primed towards a particular one…

It seems to me that they mostly find the “evidence” anecdotal.
It’s the same phenomenon when most atheists refuse to debate creationists.

Honestly, I don’t know what went on in that interview… interviews over skype are always sketchy.
I did hear the typical sound of a low quality connection… believe me, I’ve been on several of those… and those are notorious for abrupt failures where both parties think they’re talking, but none is listening to the other… and then the call drops, due to some connection timeout. Usually, these timeouts are of one or two minutes - enough time for a person to go on speaking until they wait for the other to reply… fail to get a reply… and the call drops.

If you want to. Try to get out of lommels study u can , but then u will have to deal with doctor Sam parnia a aware study which was done with even stricter scientific protocols and there was a hit on a veridical Nde that was timed as having happened for a full 3 minutes after cardiac arrest and parnia (who is an agnostic ) correctly states that the brain becomes non function 30 seconds after cardiac arrest yet this man had a veridical Nde for a full 2.5 minutes after his cardiac arrest when he floated out of his body, saw everything and everyone involved with his resuscitation in the room and more important saw a device attached to him that he also heard bleep twice . That device was set to bleep once every 3 minutes after cardiac arrest . Full and vivid conscious awareness for a full 2.5 minutes without a functional brain.

Poca, why are most neuroscientists materialists/atheists ? You wonder why ? Well I’ll tell you , it’s because they are stuck in the old paradigm and their religion of atheism has biased them against anything that disagrees with the religion of atheism .

This is why they won’t even debate ndes with an Nde researcher . Sorry but I’ll take an Nde researcher and expert any day over a neuroscientist because they aren’t just studying theories , they are performing the actual experiments that are showing that the vid vet points towards ndes not being brain based occurrences .

On top of that there are over 30 years of Nde research and it just keeps getting stronger .

Every explanation that neuroscientists put out for a brain based explanation for ndes has been soundly refuted . Gee , I wonder why that is ? Could it be that (I know that is blasphemy against the high church religion of atheism ) it isn’t being caused by the brain .

All of the evidence fits much better with the brain being a receiver for consciousness.

If you disagree please point to one atheistic/materialistic explanation that fits with the Nde data .

Neuroscientists are stuck in an old dinosaurian paradigm and they refuse to publicly and openly discuss any evidence that goes against that paradigm unless it fits with their paradigm and atheistic religious beliefs .

It is so true wh e it was famously said that science advances one grave marker At a time .

I’ll be waiting for that brain based explanation for veridical ndes and peak in Darien ndes po a

But this is where I suspect that you will leave the issue alone and appeal to the majority of neuroscientist arguments right ?

 

[Bradski]

I’m pretty sure he wasn’t speaking in a way that was to be interpreted as a fundamentalist would. So, in other words, yes, he was speaking the truth.

No he wasn’t. He said something that wasn’t true. Inadvertently, so no-one could claim that he was lying (which to me means intentionally saying something that you know is not true).

But there is a monstrous difference between someone saying: ‘Over 500 people saw Jesus’ and ‘There is a list of over 500 people who saw Jesus’. That is adding to the second statement information that didn’t appear in the first and which adds veracity to the statement. If someone were reading it and discussing the matter they would, almost as a matter of course, include that additional (incorrect) information.

‘Paul just said in passing that there were 500’
‘Oh no. I read that there is a list of those 500 people’.

And I’m not talking about that specific passage and how it should be read in the bible (anyone can read it and know there wasn’t a list!). I’m talking about how stories develop and information that is not necessarily correct is added and the story changes subtly. Very subtly at each telling. But what we end up with is quite often certainly not what we started with.

If you can’t appreciate that difference and understand why situations like that occur and where it leads, then I’m at a loss as to how to make the point any clearer.

 

[pocaracas]

Well, I could say: I gave you an example of beautiful nature. Something so beautiful could only come from God, etc etc etc.

You don’t buy it.

It’s a non-sequitur…
It doesn’t follow.
How could it only come from God? That’s… errr… begging the question.
Presupposing God?
If I say it could only come from splorcka, we’d know as much about the splorcka and the beautiful nature you showed. But I’d be presupposing splorcka as a real entity.

Similarly, I read your presentation of “evidence” that there was a myth that was spread (that STILL doesn’t address how the tomb was empty) and…

I don’t buy it.

It does address the existence of an empty tomb, in the story.
Whatever is in the story need not have really happened… but it’s impossible for you to understand that, isn’t it?
You just can’t come to consider that possibility, can you?

And, to top it off, my way of seeing things can even provide a justification for your not buying it… still in the realm of human nature, more specifically, the psychology of indoctrination.
Which also explains why I’m not buying into that tale of old…

OH… it’s not just yours… but any religion can be accounted for by simple human nature. The human nature that we all see nowadays in action. The human nature that’s studied by psychology, psychiatry, neurology and other similar fields.

But no, I’m obviously wrong… God must have looked down and seen the pre-Jesus Teacher of Righteousness and thought “Hmmm, this guy is on to something. That’s pretty much what I wanted to let them know… It seems Humanity is ready. Scotty, beam the part of me that’s my own son down. He/Me needs to fill a few empty spaces and finally end this original sin detail I created some 6000 years ago.”
And then it took that area…what?.. a few years until they realized who had just passed there… even so, they had an inter-Jewish war that had to be shut down by the romans who had to take over that region and implement their own polytheism… only to have this newly minted minority religion creep up through the ranks of the common people and, a few centuries later, even those nasty romans were in on it! And they helped spread it through the European continent - great guys!
Then, some 400 years later, those damn pesky Muslims took over much of the roman territory, from Palestine to the Iberian Peninsula.
But the Romans had taught the Visigoths well and they fought back the Muslims and pushed them away from Europe. They did manage to keep hold of the place where God chose to show us his son/himself… oh well… luckily, those romans had put the seat of power of the organization implemented by God/God’s son in Rome. Such foresight!
Then Portuguese and Spanish fleets carried the belief to Africa and America. Luckily, the people in these places were malleable, belief-wise… or understood the power of violence.
And that was it. This new belief never managed to overtake the other even newer belief by the Muslims. Never managed to dethrone Hindi, nor the Buddhism, nor Jainism…
2000 years in the making and already declining… meh… it’s not the tale of an empty tomb that’s going to convince me that this lack of efficiency is divinely inspired.
But I may have learned my history wrong…

I have found that whenever someone says this, it’s because he is getting close to understanding that his arguments are getting more and more incoherent, even as he writes them.

But I’m just…extrapolating here.

Better not extrapolate, then…

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a non-sequitur…
It doesn’t follow.

Yep.

That’s what I say to your “evidence” of a myth.

It doesn’t follow.

It does address the existence of an empty tomb, in the story.
Whatever is in the story need not have really happened… but it’s impossible for you to understand that, isn’t it?

So…in order to believe this you have to believe some things that no reputable scholar, even atheistic scholars, profess:

-the man, Jesus of Nazareth, never walked the earth
-the man Jesus of Nazareth was never condemned to death
-the man Jesus of Nazareth didn’t die by being crucified (or fake-crucified)

That, my friend, puts you in with a fringe minority.

And we’ve already established that you dismiss fringe minorities.

I hope you’re not permitting for yourself what you object to in others, right? You wouldn’t object to my dismissing fringe minority opinions, right?

You just can’t come to consider that possibility, can you?

Well, that’s like your asserting that the MMR vaccine causes autism and my refuting your arguments…and you respond by saying, “You just can’t come to other possibilities, can you? Maybe the studies you show were forged by Merck? Maybe someone has mass hallucinated the entire scientific community into believing that these studies are reliable. Did you ever think about that, huh?”

Well, yeah. If the other possibilities are ga-ga, la-la nonsense, then, yeah. I will go with what’s true.

Better not extrapolate, then…

Er…is this another example of “Atheists get to do this but Believers don’t”?

To wit:

It’s a valid enough extrapolation of my awareness of human nature.
.

 

[pocaracas]

Yep.

That’s what I say to your “evidence” of a myth.

It doesn’t follow.

Sure it doesn’t…

So…in order to believe this you have to believe some things that no reputable scholar, even atheistic scholars, profess:

-the man, Jesus of Nazareth, never walked the earth
-the man Jesus of Nazareth was never condemned to death
-the man Jesus of Nazareth didn’t die by being crucified (or fake-crucified)

That, my friend, puts you in with a fringe minority.

And we’ve already established that you dismiss fringe minorities.

I hope you’re not permitting for yourself what you object to in others, right? You wouldn’t object to my dismissing fringe minority opinions, right?

Oh really? I have to believe in those things?
Perhaps not.
Did my notion require that a Jesus not exist?
Did my notion require that this Jesus not be condemned to death? And, as was common, died by crucifixion?

The curious bit, is that the same tale of a teacher was told and it lacked the resurrection part.
Later, you find a guy claiming that he was risen.
Then, not only risen, but interacting with people, with his old apostles.

It’s a story in the making… a myth in the making.

Well, that’s like your asserting that the MMR vaccine causes autism and my refuting your arguments…and you respond by saying, “You just can’t come to other possibilities, can you? Maybe the studies you show were forged by Merck? Maybe someone has mass hallucinated the entire scientific community into believing that these studies are reliable. Did you ever think about that, huh?”

Well, yeah. If the other possibilities are ga-ga, la-la nonsense, then, yeah. I will go with what’s true.

How do you determine what is true?

Er…is this another example of “Atheists get to do this but Believers don’t”?

Sometimes, extrapolation is valid… other times, better not do it.
It’s not a matter of this group can do it, and this other group can’t…
You may certainly extrapolate… but you better make sure it is a valid action.

 

[PRmerger]

So…in order to believe this you have to believe some things that no reputable scholar, even atheistic scholars, profess:

-the man, Jesus of Nazareth, never walked the earth
-the man Jesus of Nazareth was never condemned to death
-the man Jesus of Nazareth didn’t die by being crucified (or fake-crucified)

That, my friend, puts you in with a fringe minority.

And we’ve already established that you dismiss fringe minorities.

I hope you’re not permitting for yourself what you object to in others, right? You wouldn’t object to my dismissing fringe minority opinions, right?

Incidentally, poca, Professor Contarini already provided a list of things scholars generally agree upon earlier in the thread.

But I’ll provide it again, in case you missed it:

gregmonette.com/blog/post/the-bare-bones-facts-about-jesus-of-nazareth-according-to-e.-p.-sanders

• Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
• he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
• he was baptized by John the Baptist;
• he called disciples;
• he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
• he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
• about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
• he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
• he had a final meal with the disciples;
• he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
• he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.
• his disciples at first fled;
• they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death;
• as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom;
• they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah.

“It’s just that his representation of the state of New Testament scholarship concerning Jesus still appears to be the present day consensus. In order to overturn one of Sanders’ fifteen ‘facts’ there would need to be a very good reason to do so.”

And, again, this is with Believer and Non-Believers alike.

So, anything you want to present that is consonant with the “present day consensus” based on very vigorous and rigorous scrutiny by experts, I will gladly entertain.

Anything that isn’t…well, I would be in good company as dismissing it as fringey, weird, and not worthy of discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

No he wasn’t. He said something that wasn’t true. Inadvertently, so no-one could claim that he was lying (which to me means intentionally saying something that you know is not true).

But there is a monstrous difference between someone saying: ‘Over 500 people saw Jesus’ and ‘There is a list of over 500 people who saw Jesus’. That is adding to the second statement information that didn’t appear in the first and which adds veracity to the statement. If someone were reading it and discussing the matter they would, almost as a matter of course, include that additional (incorrect) information.

‘Paul just said in passing that there were 500’
‘Oh no. I read that there is a list of those 500 people’.

And I’m not talking about that specific passage and how it should be read in the bible (anyone can read it and know there wasn’t a list!).

List of 500–

"list 1 (lĭst)
n.

1. A series of names, words, or other items written, printed, or imagined one after the other: a shopping list; a guest list; a list of things to do.
2. A considerable number; a long series: recited a list of dates memorized."
   thefreedictionary.com/list

Look at #2.

You are thinking of a literal list, written on paper (papyrus?).

Try to think a little bigger.

Paul had a list of 500 witnesses that he could use, if necessary, in a court of law, to prove his case.

 

[pocaracas]

Incidentally, poca, Professor Contarini already provided a list of things scholars generally agree upon earlier in the thread.

You know… I’ve addressed this kind of thing before…
How many of those scholars assume…nay… are convinced that Jesus did all those things and even came back from the dead?
How many were believers prior to scholars of the new testament?

Here’s a rough list:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Testament_scholars

Just from the A’s:
Ezra Abbot - He graduated from Bowdoin College in 1840. 'nuff said.
Paul J. Achtemeier - served as President of the Catholic Biblical Association of America
A. K. M. Adam - is a Biblical scholar, theologian, author, priest, technologist and blogger.
Barbara Aland - Not clear… but “In 1969 she gained her licentiate at the “Oriental Faculty” of Pontificio Istituto Biblico in Rome, Italy.” a hint of catholic…
Dale Allison - joining Princeton Theological Seminary in 2013
Francis Karl Alter - a Jesuit, born in Silesia,
Clinton E. Arnold - 2011 president of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Harold W. Attridge - is the general editor of the HarperCollins Study Bible
David Aune - is a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

There… not exactly an unbiased bunch…

So, do tell me again how most biblical scholars agree on some detail of the christian doctrine, for which the only evidence of it ever having happened is the bible itself.

 

[Bradski]

Paul had a list of 500 witnesses that he could use, if necessary, in a court of law, to prove his case.

What? A list he could use in a court of law? An actual list of people’s names?

But PR, you just made that up. Nowhere does it say that. You are adding yet more to the story. It’s growing slowly post by post.

There were 500 people.
No, wait. There is actually a list of these 500 people.
No, hang on, there’s more. There is actually a list of these 500 people which is sufficiently accurate enough to be accepted in a court of law.

Anyone reading your posts would now be able to say:

The resurrection must be true. I read on a Catholic forum that there is a list of 500 people who saw the risen Christ. A list which would be acceptable as evidence in a court of law and which would prove the matter beyond any reasonable doubt. She wouldn’t lie, so it must be true.

 

[PRmerger]

You know… I’ve addressed this kind of thing before…
How many of those scholars assume…nay… are convinced that Jesus did all those things and even came back from the dead?
How many were believers prior to scholars of the new testament?

Here’s a rough list:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Testament_scholars

Just from the A’s:
Ezra Abbot - He graduated from Bowdoin College in 1840. 'nuff said.
Paul J. Achtemeier - served as President of the Catholic Biblical Association of America
A. K. M. Adam - is a Biblical scholar, theologian, author, priest, technologist and blogger.
Barbara Aland - Not clear… but “In 1969 she gained her licentiate at the “Oriental Faculty” of Pontificio Istituto Biblico in Rome, Italy.” a hint of catholic…
Dale Allison - joining Princeton Theological Seminary in 2013
Francis Karl Alter - a Jesuit, born in Silesia,
Clinton E. Arnold - 2011 president of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Harold W. Attridge - is the general editor of the HarperCollins Study Bible
David Aune - is a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

There… not exactly an unbiased bunch…

So, do tell me again how most biblical scholars agree on some detail of the christian doctrine, for which the only evidence of it ever having happened is the bible itself.

They agree on the 15 things on the list, poca.

Yes, yes, they (a consensus) do.

 

[PRmerger]

What? A list he could use in a court of law? An actual list of people’s names?

A list in the sense of #2.

But PR, you just made that up. Nowhere does it say that. You are adding yet more to the story. It’s growing slowly post by post.

Well, again, we Catholics don’t go by the Bible Alone.

There were 500 people.
No, wait. There is actually a list of these 500 people.

In the sense of #2

No, hang on, there’s more. There is actually a list of these 500 people which is sufficiently accurate enough to be accepted in a court of law.

That’s what Paul was using as his criteria.

Which is why he didn’t count women, because he knew their testimony would be dismissed in a court of law.

So there were, of course, more than 500 witnesses.

Anyone reading your posts would now be able to say:

The resurrection must be true. I read on a Catholic forum that there is a list of 500 people who saw the risen Christ. A list which would be acceptable as evidence in a court of law and which would prove the matter beyond any reasonable doubt. She wouldn’t lie, so it must be true.

Well, yeah.

I would hope that I have informed some people of that today.

But I would be surprised if someone here didn’t already know that there was a list of 500 people who saw the risen Christ.

And, again, we are talking about a recitation of names, a long series of witnesses.

Nothing specifically on paper. Necessarily.

But possibly so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So when Peter said that there was a ‘list of 500 people’, was he telling the truth?

Go back to that post Brad. I never claimed there was a list of 500. What I said was that Paul had a list in his letter of various witnesses including the Apostles, the disciples, Peter, James, 500 witnesses and himself.

The list I referred to was Paul’s list of witnesses not a list of the 500.

I am heading out the door at the moment so I don’t have the time to link to it, but you are free to re-read the post.

I even itemized the list I was referring to from Paul’s letter. The fact that you read it as an alleged list of 500 names is your problem, actually, not mine.

 

[PRmerger]

What? A list he could use in a court of law? An actual list of people’s names?

But PR, you just made that up. Nowhere does it say that. You are adding yet more to the story. It’s growing slowly post by post.

There were 500 people.
No, wait. There is actually a list of these 500 people.
No, hang on, there’s more. There is actually a list of these 500 people which is sufficiently accurate enough to be accepted in a court of law.

Anyone reading your posts would now be able to say:

The resurrection must be true. I read on a Catholic forum that there is a list of 500 people who saw the risen Christ. A list which would be acceptable as evidence in a court of law and which would prove the matter beyond any reasonable doubt. She wouldn’t lie, so it must be true.

Or…you could also direct them here: catholic.com/audio-player/4526

Start listening at about 15:50.

Catholic Apologist Steve Ray says: “he’s only including those who could have been included in a court of law”, regarding the 500 witnesses.

 

[Bradski]

Go back to that post Brad. I never claimed there was a list of 500. What I said was that Paul had a list in his letter of various witnesses including the Apostles, the disciples, Peter, James, 500 witnesses and himself.

The list I referred to was Paul’s list of witnesses not a list of the 500.

Yes, I think that I misread that. To save you looking it up, this might have been the portion:

Which is precisely what Paul said he had at the time when those 500 individuals were “still alive” to provide their 500 testimonies to anyone who cared to follow up on his challenge to anyone who doubted HIS claim.

So I concede that there is no mention made of a list of the 500 brethren in scripture. Paul simply says: ‘he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once’. Fair enough. No list.

However…we have now gone from mention being made of 500 people, to me thinking you were inadvertently claiming that a list existed when it was me who inadvertently misunderstood you, to the point where PR, following this wherever it might go, thinks that this is a valid statement:

‘There is a list of 500 people who saw the risen Christ. A list which would be acceptable as evidence in a court of law and which would prove the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

As PR said, to confirm that that is a valid statement:

Well, yeah. I would hope that I have informed some people of that today.

No prevarication there. A definite agreement that that statement is valid. And one that she hopes will have better informed some people. That would be better informed about something that started off as a simple statement, unverifiable, was claimed (incorrectly) to comprise a list of names and then puffed up to a ‘list that would be acceptable in a court of law’.

And the defence (although why try to defend against a point you have made yourself) is:

And, again, we are talking about a recitation of names, a long series of witnesses. Nothing specifically on paper. Necessarily. But possibly so…

A recitation of 500 names? Not necessarily on paper? Good grief…

Catholic Apologist Steve Ray says: “he’s only including those who could have been included in a court of law”, regarding the 500 witnesses.

You seem to be insinuating that Paul would only include some of those 500, not all. I think you’d have to do that, because who on earth could remember 500 names? Who could remember 50? But you are not correct. The actual statement Ray made was:

‘He didn’t include women. He only included those who could have been used in a court of law’.

That means he only included men. Ray specifically goes on to explain why. And confirms that there were more than 500 (who could have been used in a court of law). All of whom one must presume Paul knew. Or at least they were people whose name he knew. And where they could be found. And he either made a list, which he must have forgotten to mention, or he memorised them all and was able to recite them 30 odd years later.

I think that this shows two things.

Firstly, how easy it is to make statements that you believe are entirely valid, and more importantly that you can convince other people to believe to be entirely valid, but which in no way resemble the facts of the matter. And that’s in a few posts in a forum where we all are, presumably, careful about what we write, have the ability to re-read it and edit it and have a world’s worth of knowledge to back up our claims at our fingertips.

Secondly, how tortuous are the arguments then used to back up the claims when they seem to appear, when challenged, to be a little, how shall we say, fragile.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I think that I misread that. To save you looking it up, this might have been the portion:

So I concede that there is no mention made of a list of the 500 brethren in scripture. Paul simply says: ‘he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once’. Fair enough. No list.

However…we have now gone from mention being made of 500 people, to me thinking you were inadvertently claiming that a list existed when it was me who inadvertently misunderstood you, to the point where PR, following this wherever it might go, thinks that this is a valid statement:

‘There is a list of 500 people who saw the risen Christ. A list which would be acceptable as evidence in a court of law and which would prove the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

As PR said, to confirm that that is a valid statement:

A list, as in, a series of names.

A recitation of 500 names? Not necessarily on paper? Good grief…

Not sure what you find troubling about this.

What if we changed it from a specific number to “hundreds”.

Would that be more palatable to you?

“There was a series of hundreds of men that Paul could call to mind who had seen the Risen Christ.”

You seem to be insinuating that Paul would only include some of those 500, not all.

Include in what, exactly?

I think you’d have to do that, because who on earth could remember 500 names? Who could remember 50?

Why would he have to remember them? They remembered themselves, presumably.

But you are not correct

Actually, I am.

And you owe me an apology for accusing me of “just making it up” that Paul’s 500 witnesses were those he could call on in a court of law.

The actual statement Ray made was:
‘He didn’t include women. He only included those who could have been used in a court of law’.

That means he only included men.

Yes. That’s what he said.

And I said that this means that there were actually more than 500 witnesses, since he did not include women.

Ray specifically goes on to explain why. And confirms that there were more than 500 (who could have been used in a court of law). All of whom one must presume Paul knew. Or at least they were people whose name he knew.

Yes.

And where they could be found.

Yes, probably.

And he either made a list, which he must have forgotten to mention, or he memorised them all and was able to recite them 30 odd years later.

Or…they came to him.

And they started…

a church.

How 'bout that?

 

[Bradski]

Yes.

So if you agree that Paul would have known the people or at least to have known their names, we have three options so far:

1. Paul made a list of 500 people’s names and contact details, or…
2. He remembered 500 people’s names and contact details, or…
3. Thirty years after they were reported to have seen Jesus, the ones who were still alive uprooted themselves and travelled 1800 kms to Ephesus to see Paul.

These are your interpretations of what you think is likely to have happened. Do any of them really sound credible to you? Notwithstanding that none of this information is to be found anywhere in scripture at all.