The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[EricFilmer]

Sure, but the difference between a skeptic and a non-skeptic is that a skeptic tries to identify the times when he is gerrymandering so that he can believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.

EDIT: Oh, brother. I just noticed this trash:

Trash? Are you going to honestly say that this sort of attitude does not go on within the atheist community? Oh sure, all atheists are bastions of intellectual integrity, devoid of all hypocrisy. Give me a break.

I for one don’t presume that “The scientific method is the only means for examining that which exists.” I am perfectly capable of, for example, examining my coffee cup without using the scientific method, and I can adequately confirm that my coffee cup exists without the scientific method.

I’ve noticed that you and Touchstone like to make all sorts of comments such as “I don’t presume that” or “I’m not ruling out the possibility for this” and so forth. But functionally you seem to actually make such presumptions, and actually rule out such possibilities.

What I use is evidence, which does not have to be purely scientific.

Out of curiosity, in your 1000+ posts in CA, did you ever once accept a religious premise that was not backed up with purely scientific evidence? Call me psychic, but I’m predicting that the answer is “no.”

Considering your other recent posts, I noticed that recently you have decided to consistently ignore what I stated concerning:

1. Even if the universe is broken down into its simplest components, there is still a finite quantity. This finite quantity exists independent of our concepts or perception.
2. The great variation between human language and mathematics argues strongly against them both being constructs of the human mind.
3. Explain how something that is solely a mental concept can be a universal absolute.
4. And, might at add, no attempt yet to undertake my experiment in defining the number one.

These are the issues that need to be addressed, rather than simply finding a different way to say your initial basic premise over and over again.

 

[Touchstone]

As you can see, I have already presented a case above for quantity being an aspect of objective reality.

Ok, here is what I suggest is an instructive test for this. I can provide you physics models that incorporate “mass” as an intrinsic property of matter. That is, I can provide performative formulas that require mass to make the model work, to match empirical analysis.

Can you provide a similar model where ‘quantity’ is a necessary aspect of the model? I don’t think you can. And if not, this should signal to you an important distinction, that our entire physics model works without incorporating “quantity” as a physical feature of anything, which cannot be said of mass. This is because “quantity” is an cognitive construct overlaid on a physics model for practical purposes of human comprehension.

If it is still your position to debate this, then I will submit to you the same task I proposed to AT in Post #382. I will now cut & paste it:

I have an experiment that could possibly be used to demonstrate my position that the number one is not only something that is an aspect of the human mind. This experiment involves creating a definition of the number one within a certain set of reasonable parameters.

1. As we all learned in school, it is not proper to define something by using it in the definition. Therefore, the challenge is to define the number one without using “one” or simply substituting “one” with a synonym (i.e., “single”).
2. Because we are examining the idea of the existence of one, the task at hand is to define the number one without presupposing its existence. This rules out the use of other numbers or mathematical equations in the definition, because (as I demonstrated above) the use of such things presume that the number one exists to begin with.
   My position in this challenge is that if the number one is only a product of the human mind, then the human mind likewise ought to be able to give a definition of the number one based on the guidelines I set above.

No it shouldn’t, for “one”, by another label is the same concept. But it’s still a concept, which is the problem, not the language or the definition. See above, and see if you can apply the concept of “one” in a physics formula, or part of a natural model that works. I can apply “energy” or “force” or “inertia” or “velocity” – these are concepts that point to physical features and dynamics. But “one” is a “meta-concept”, provides great usefulness as an abstraction, but as such is a “housekeeping” function, a cognitive utility, as opposed to an organic feature of nature that we are modeling.

Give it a try, you might be surprised how stumped are to apply “one” as I suggest above.

For the record, I am not saying that there is not an acceptable definition out there, and I have no guarantees or predictions as to outcome of this experiment if the challenge is undertaken by you are someone else. But if, after having read my above post, it is still your position that the number one does not exist independent of the mind then I ask you demonstrate it by taking on this task.

I don’t think definitions even possibly speaks to the truth of this proposition. If “one” obtains in extramental reality, let’s look for some extramental evidence of it. Mass is a good example to follow. Can you follow.

A philosophy prof from many years ago made an opening point in a lecture that has proven useful to remember: *there are no ‘general objects’, there are only specific objects. *Or, as he put it, alternately, there are no general dogs, there are only specific dogs. That doesn’t mean that “dog” as an abstraction, as a category, isn’t useful and practical for the mind. Manifestly it is. But as such, an abstraction, a means of classification and categorization, like “one”, it’s not pointing at anything outside of the mind, but at a collection of features that are useful conceptually.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Eric Fillmer:

Quite frankly, I fail to see how anyone could read my description of “Nebraska” and then ask what I meant by the term “actual.” “Nebraska” is a word crafted within the English language to correspond with an artificial set of boundaries on the North American continent. It could have been called something else. But if there is a finite number of something in objective reality then that is a fixed quantity. You can call the quantity by different words if you want, but the objective reality remains fixed.

Again, it’s not the language that is at issue here, but the concept of “quantity” itself that is problematic. “Quantity” is an abstraction, and doesn’t exist in and of itself any more than “walking” does. Walking is a real phenomenon, but you can’t measure, weigh, or otherwise quanitfy “walking”. It’s an abstraction that’s useful conceptually, that points to a particular set of body motions. But “walking” doesn’t exist outside of the mind. It’s a mental construct, apart from the motion of body parts that is moving “as part of the territory”.

Your example using topo lines is just another attempt to represent quantity and math as simply another kind of language. In language, we see an aspect of objective reality and fashion a word for it. In terms of a map with topo lines we see an aspect of objective reality and draw it. One system uses words and the others uses symbols. But land exists independent of the words like “Nebraska” and land has different degrees of elevation independent of topo lines.

Exactly. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Topo lines, like any other map element, are distinct from the territory. “Quantity” and “one” are map elements. You are right there on the cusp of this!

Once again, you are describing objective reality, although for some reason you seem to want to avoid the term. But the essence of what we are debating is what belongs to objective reality.

No, I’m quite persnickety about objective reality, and suppose one reason to hang out here is to defend it – it takes a lot of abuse on this forum. I agree that we are at odds as to what belongs to objective reality, but I think we are at least agreed in principle in what is meant by “objective reality”. That is ground gained, and nothing to dismiss lightly.

Given that, though, I think we have the basis for a reasonable and fair test. What can we do to see if “one” is a feature of objective reality? Well, that’s what I’ve been pushing above. Consider “mass”. Call it what you want, but the concept of “mass” as used in physics is a dynamic that plays a crucial and functional role in the models we use that perform and succeed. It’s implicated as part of the model – not part of the language we use, but as part of the dynamics the model represents.

Can you find a way to implicate “one” in such a way? I don’t think you can, and I suggest this is grounds for understanding “one” to be considered conceptual in nature, and not intrinsic to any part of extra-mental reality.

You already admitted in a past post (#411) that objective reality (however you want to use the term) “is just space/time/energy/mass.”

So far as we can tell. There might be more, but if so, it would have to meet the same tests for “independence of mind” in the model that captured it, just like physics models and S/T/E/M.

But unless you can demonstrate that the materials therein are infinite then you have to recognize that they are finite. This leads back to quantity as being a part of objective reality, as I stated earlier.

If I grant (and this doesn’t strike me as controversial) that all of that is finite, all I’ve done is shared in a conceptual way of apprehending nature. This is map-making. “Finite” is a topo line on the map, not a feature of the territory, a way to think about the territory.

-TS

(this exchange is involved enough, it should really be split out into a thread – “Are Numbers and ‘Quantity’ aspects of objective/extra-mental reality?”)

 

[EricFilmer]

I don’t know what a “universal absolute” is.

novan.com/space.htm

 

[lemondiesel]

Lol, are you guys even on the original topic?

Anyway someone would be kind enough to present the question that currently is being discussed?

I would really like to talk about the Gospels, and feel like I can present convincing arguments on how they should be interpreted and who Jesus really was.

 

[EricFilmer]

Can you provide a similar model where ‘quantity’ is a necessary aspect of the model?

I’ve been doing this all along. The universe even in its most basic components possesses a finite number of those components.

No it shouldn’t, for “one”, by another label is the same concept. But it’s still a concept, which is the problem, not the language or the definition.

The whole examination was designed to test whether or not “one” is something that is solely fashioned by humans (such as a concept). But here you are saying that the experiment won’t work because it is a concept. As I stated in the challenge, if “one” is something solely fashioned by humans, then humans ought to be able to define it in the parameters I set.

See above, and see if you can apply the concept of “one” in a physics formula, or part of a natural model that works. I can apply “energy” or “force” or “inertia” or “velocity” – these are concepts that point to physical features and dynamics. But “one” is a “meta-concept”, provides great usefulness as an abstraction, but as such is a “housekeeping” function, a cognitive utility, as opposed to an organic feature of nature that we are modeling.

Physics formulas presuppose math. Math presupposes numbers. Every number presupposes the existence of “one.”

I don’t think definitions even possibly speaks to the truth of this proposition. If “one” obtains in extramental reality, let’s look for some extramental evidence of it. Mass is a good example to follow. Can you follow.

What was wrong with what I have been saying about particles existing in a finite amount?

 

[EricFilmer]

(this exchange is involved enough, it should really be split out into a thread – “Are Numbers and ‘Quantity’ aspects of objective/extra-mental reality?”)

I agree. It has become an incredibly involved topic in and of itself, and worthy of its own discussion (and would be more able to draw in a variety of other perspectives as well). But I do appreciate the time and energy you have committed to this topic in this thread. And although I do not agree on some of the applications you have presented involving objective reality and subjective perception, I will admit the fault could simply be my lack of comprehension. My grasp of scientific and mathematical principles are foundational at best.

What I use is evidence, which does not have to be purely scientific. The more evidence there is for something, the more likely it is to exist.

AT, I am going to extend to you a sincere apology. I have come to the realization that I have, basically, high jacked your thread. Even though I felt the discussion concerning how we discern evidence was relevant to the discussion, I did not handle it correctly. When I initially questioned your definition of evidence, rather than setting off a big debate concerning the merits of your response, I should have invited you to discuss them in a separate thread , and let this thread continue its course. Not having done the right thing, my persistence in focusing on this subject has monopolized this thread over the past few days, and contributed little, if anything, to the central topic it was designed for.

You are the OP, and you have asked for evidence pertaining to the accounts described in the gospels. You have likewise made it clear what your own concepts are concerning evidence, and you have good reasons to support these concepts. People, of course, are free to engage you on this topic if they choose. But they should not have to attempt to do this while sifting through the multiple posts that I perpetuated in this whole situation concerning numbers and math. Nor should you, as the OP, have to endure this (nonetheless, I appreciate your patience and participation).

Lol, are you guys even on the original topic?

Anyway someone would be kind enough to present the question that currently is being discussed?

I would really like to talk about the Gospels, and feel like I can present convincing arguments on how they should be interpreted and who Jesus really was.

Well spoken, lemondiesel. This thread has gone thorugh some changes in the discussion it generated since its conception. As you can see in my above apology to AntiTheist, I’m responsible for the current barrage of ideas being examined and debated. To put it another way, “This is my mess.” AT has asked for evidence that the miraculous accounts in the gospels actually happened. A few days ago I asked him what he considered was (generally speaking) acceptable evidence. I felt his definition did not allow for the existence of the number one. This has snowballed into a big debate over whether or not numbers and math have an objective reality beyond subjective perception. As TouchStone pointed out, something this involved really ought to be its own thread topic, and I now agree. So I’m sorry for the confusion this has created for those like you who are wanting to participate in what is the posted topic of this thread.

 

[Touchstone]

I’ve been doing this all along. The universe even in its most basic components possesses a finite number of those components.

Yes, but this is descriptive, a way of speaking about the universe for humans (and maybe other minds). It’s the map, not the territory. I’m asking for you to place “finite”, or if you prefer, “quantity” in the territory, and not as part of the map. The example I gave was “mass”. We use the word “mass” to refer to a concept that is part of our model of physics, but mass is not the mode of description, as math or numbers or quantities would be, but the dynamic of the territory we are modeling with math. That is, our formulas and equations break down as physical relationships being modeled if mass is not a factor of the territory. Our map doesn’t work, not because we are language challenged, but because our conceptual model depends on that being part of the territory for the descriptive side (the map) to match our observations.

This is not the case with “quantity” or “finite”. You can completely delete those as concepts, and the model is unaffected. It still matches the territory as well as it does observationally. Numbers and math are conceptual tools for map-making. They are not features of the territory, and this can be shown by looking at what breaks in the model if those tools are removed or changed. “One” is a tools for speaking about the model, and indirectly the territory.

The whole examination was designed to test whether or not “one” is something that is solely fashioned by humans (such as a concept). But here you are saying that the experiment won’t work because it is a concept. As I stated in the challenge, if “one” is something solely fashioned by humans, then humans ought to be able to define it in the parameters I set.

It can’t help because it’s only a definition. A definition cannot possibly, even in principle, implicate the territory (objective reality) on its own. Succeed or fail, it would tell you precisely nothing about whether “one” was a feature of the territory or not. You will have to test the territory – and since we don’t have an objective frame of reference ourselves, we use the next best thing available, models that perform empirically. And by this measure, actually applying “one” or “inifinite” to our models that perform, we can see that they non-objects in the model. They are meta-conceptual elements for talking about and describing the model. They are not implicated in the model itself. Again, if that’s confusing, consider how ‘mass’ is implicated the model itself, by contrast with “one” or “finite”.

Physics formulas presuppose math. Math presupposes numbers. Every number presupposes the existence of “one.”
Physics models and physics concepts presuppose language and math, for sure. But here again, the red flag comes out for confusing map and territory. Physics formulas are NOT nature itself. Physics formulas are the maps! Physics as the territory – the natural world – can’t be bothered. Outside of minds, math and numbers are nothings, and CANNOT BE FOUND OR IMPLICATED as part of the territory, as extra-mental.

What was wrong with what I have been saying about particles existing in a finite amount?

Maybe it helps to attach it to your use of “physics formulas”, above. “Finite” is a construct we deploy in a formula, or a proposition for our concepts, our model. It’s a way to classify, or think about nature. It’s not an intrinsic property of any part of nature itself, outside of our minds.

Your suggestion that the “universe having finite elements” is an example misunderstands the request. No physics model, or any model that performs empirically like that implicates “finite”. That’s not to say we cannot find accurate and useful descriptions of the universe that employ the concept “finite”. We can. But that doesn’t demonstrate what is being requested, that “finite” obtains as an intrinsic aspect of nature itself, in the way “mass” or “spin” does for a particle. “Mass” is descriptive, but it is descriptive of a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of nature, if our physics and empirical methods are at all correct.

“Finite” does not obtain in that way, and is non-sensical in that context. If we place minds in the mix, thinking about nature, “finite” makes sense. But that just fits with “concepts are mental constructs only”. “Finite” as an intrinsic, fundamental dynamic in nature, a part of what we capture and model in our physics frameworks, rather than how we speak about it, is a non-starter.

If we say “mass”, the physical dynamic we believe we are modeling in physics, is a nothing, our model breaks. Our observations can’t be reconciled with our models. We lose *f=ma, *Newton’s Second Law of Motion. The problem is NOT that we now have a language difficulty, which is all the nullification of “finite” would entail. We have a missing dynamic in the physical principles themselves. That is why we suppose that “mass” is a fundamental aspect of objective reality, a feature of matter, totally apart from minds and concepts.

If “finite” is nullified, considered a nothing, we do not lose f=ma, or anything like it. All we lose is handy tools for talking about our models. We don’t lose anything fundamental to the model, and by isomorphism the territory itself (if reality is real and empirical observation reflects it), if “finite” is dropped from the conceptual toolkit.

-TS

 

[lemondiesel]

Well spoken, lemondiesel. This thread has gone thorugh some changes in the discussion it generated since its conception. As you can see in my above apology to AntiTheist, I’m responsible for the current barrage of ideas being examined and debated. To put it another way, “This is my mess.” AT has asked for evidence that the miraculous accounts in the gospels actually happened. A few days ago I asked him what he considered was (generally speaking) acceptable evidence. I felt his definition did not allow for the existence of the number one. This has snowballed into a big debate over whether or not numbers and math have an objective reality beyond subjective perception. As TouchStone pointed out, something this involved really ought to be its own thread topic, and I now agree. So I’m sorry for the confusion this has created for those like you who are wanting to participate in what is the posted topic of this thread.

No need for an apology, we all get carried away sometimes. We’re human

Has it been brought up that acceptable evidence is anything that describe the certain situation best?

 

[AntiTheist]

Has it been brought up that acceptable evidence is anything that describe the certain situation best?

What do you mean by this?

The way I use terms, “evidence” doesn’t “describe” anything at all. Evidence is data that supports a claim.

For example, if a person claims, “Jesus existed and did magic and rose from the dead,” those are three separate claims that require evidence. The evidence that we have – anonymous, non-eyewitness recordings of legends from the first century – might be sufficient to suggest that there probably was a person or persons upon whom the legends were based (in the same way that there probably was a historical king upon whom the Arthurian myths were based).

But there is insufficient evidence to establish that the magical parts of the stories are true. See the OP for more on this.

 

[lemondiesel]

What do you mean by this?

The way I use terms, “evidence” doesn’t “describe” anything at all. Evidence is data that supports a claim.

For example, if a person claims, “Jesus existed and did magic and rose from the dead,” those are three separate claims that require evidence. The evidence that we have – anonymous, non-eyewitness recordings of legends from the first century – might be sufficient to suggest that there probably was a person or persons upon whom the legends were based (in the same way that there probably was a historical king upon whom the Arthurian myths were based).

But there is insufficient evidence to establish that the magical parts of the stories are true. See the OP for more on this.

I was talking about evidence in general. Anything that is evidence becomes evidence because it is best understood and the most reasonable explanation. This doesn’t make sense to us in modern times, because we have never seen anyone else do these types of miracles.

I definitely think though that the miracles stories were devised to keep the message of Jesus for eternity. I mean when you take out the miracles and magic, the message is easily understood. It is only when we talk about the attributes that make Jesus live on that we will have different opinions.

edit: I view evidence different from fact. Evidence is based on the present and fact is more of past and preset. These stories are evidence that Jesus was a great man, because people wrote about him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It is generally agreed that Mark wrote the first Gospel. Mark was a disciple of Peter and doubtless learned all that was stated in his Gospel from the lips of Peter, who appears as the central figure among the followers of Christ in all the Gospels. Peter was an eyewitness to the Resurrection. So was John, who accounts for it as well in his Gospel. The Resurrection is the central miracle of the New Testament, constantly mentioned in the letters of Paul, who, a man of the greatest integrity, certainly would not have believed in it if he had not been informed of the fact by the other apostles.

As to the other miracles, if they are doubted, one has to believe the authors of the New Testament were all liars since they all pretty much document the same miracles. This does not square with the sentiments expressed throughout the New Testament. If God did appear to the human race in the person of Jesus Christ, he would certainly have been entitled to suspend the laws of nature by performing miracles in order to bring attention to himself as the bringer of hope and glad tidings.

Yes, it is inevitable that those who do not believe must bring discredit, if they can, on the authors of the New Testament. Some have even tried to deny that Jesus was a real person. That would be the most successful lie of all, if it could be believed. But if it could be believed, it’s because people want to believe it, not because they have any evidence whatever that it’s true.

 

[AntiTheist]

It is generally agreed that Mark wrote the first Gospel. Mark was a disciple of Peter and doubtless learned all that was stated in his Gospel from the lips of Peter, who appears as the central figure among the followers of Christ in all the Gospels. Peter was an eyewitness to the Resurrection. So was John, who accounts for it as well in his Gospel.

Agreed on by whom? Unless you have something better than “Church tradition” to go on, you’re going to have to face the fact that these texts are anonymous writings from later in the first century.

The Resurrection is the central miracle of the New Testament, constantly mentioned in the letters of Paul, who

…who was not a contemporary of Jesus

a man of the greatest integrity, certainly would not have believed in it if he had not been informed of the fact by the other apostles.

“See, there must have been evidence somehwere – even though I can’t produce it – because this guy I respect believed it, so that means it must have been so!”

As to the other miracles, if they are doubted, one has to believe the authors of the New Testament were all liars since they all pretty much document the same miracles.

Or that the stories are legends, in exactly the way the OP explains, which means that the authors – whoever they were – may have been sincere but mistaken.

 

[Windfish]

I guess I’m being pompous, here, but I think I have sufficiently dismantled this thread’s topic. It just is a poor thesis with no explanatory power and also one that goes against the history and the critical study of scholars. I asked him which books he read that made him come to this conclusion, and all he could list was Ehrman, which doesn’t even touch very much the historicity of the Gospels, only their textual fidelity. And even there, Ehrman has been demolished by dozens of books. So really, he just has a very vague skepticism that doesn’t need to be treated very seriously.

 

[Windfish]

What we know about the history of ancient Rome comes to us from about three historians, and all of their works are anonymous since none of them explicitly identify themselves. This is how history was done. But we know who wrote them. It is the same with the Gospels. The earliest manuscripts we have discovered all attribute them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and early Church fathers like Papias who were instructed by the apostles themselves all attest to this as well. This is excellent ancient history.

Also, all ancient history is non-contemporaneous (though Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, though). This is how ancient history was done. And even here, the Gospels are remarkable since they are much, much closer to the events they describe than secular ancient histories. The idea of them being legends is just ludicrous with no basis whatsoever. And like I detailed in my earlier post, this just doesn’t jive at all with the intent, form, medium, and historical efficacy of the Gospels.

Again, this is just vague skepticism that clearly has no familiarity with the scholarship on this. I hope you take my book recommendations to heart.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

*Agreed on by whom? Unless you have something better than “Church tradition” to go on, you’re going to have to face the fact that these texts are anonymous writings from later in the first century. *

That Mark wrote first is agreed on by modern Catholic and Protestant scholars. Of course you would know better since you know everything about biblical scholarship, right?

What “fact” are you talking about when you say they were written by anonymous authors? Cite your source.

*…who was not a contemporary of Jesus *

He definitely was a contemporary of Jesus, which casts into serious doubt your credentials as a biblical scholar!

“See, there must have been evidence somehwere – even though I can’t produce it – because this guy I respect believed it, so that means it must have been so!”

Well, we usually believe people we respect as opposed to people we have contempt for. Since you have contempt for Paul (you must think him a liar), I wouldn’t expect you to believe him.

*Or that the stories are legends, in exactly the way the OP explains, which means that the authors – whoever they were – may have been sincere but mistaken. *

Again, Mark was a disciple of Jesus and a student/secretary of Peter; so you have lost your argument from legend and have to assert bald-faced lies both on the part of Peter and Mark. Tsk, tsk.:tsktsk: Where do you get all those “facts”?

There’s not a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, nor a single piece of evidence that confirms any of the magical parts of the story.

Says you. Peter was an eye witness to all the events. They could not have been reported by Mark unless he got them from Peter. So there again goes your argument from legend. Peter wrote two epistles, in one of which he talks about the devil prowling about the world seeking whom he may devour.

People who insist it is a “fact” that the Gospels are all legend and no facts have the devil breathing down their neck. :bigyikes:

 

[Clcwmt]

You are one crazy Catholic!

 

[AntiTheist]

I guess I’m being pompous, here, but I think I have sufficiently dismantled this thread’s topic. It just is a poor thesis with no explanatory power

What’s with these pitiful teenagers waltzing in here and making statements like these that utterly and completely fail to comprehend what’s going on in the thread? I guess this is a product of the so-called “me generation,” eh?

Newsflash: The OP is presenting reasons that texts – even “eyewitness texts” – are insufficient to establish that magic happened.

If you’re claiming that miraculous events happened, the burden of proof is on you, and it is a significant burden of proof, as you are claiming things that have never been known to occur ever.

If the best evidence you have for this are ancient stories, you don’t have sufficient evidence. As Touchstone pointed out, if this were a court of law, it would never get to trial.

 

[AntiTheist]

That Mark wrote first is agreed on by modern Catholic and Protestant scholars.

That text was probably produced earlier than the others, but the claim that it was really the “mark” who was an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry is unsubstantiated.

What “fact” are you talking about when you say they were written by anonymous authors? Cite your source.

Feel free to look at the list compiled by EricFilmer earlier in the thread and his correct observation that the wide variety of scholarly conclusions indicates that there is insufficient evidence to make these claims.

He definitely was a contemporary of Jesus, which casts into serious doubt your credentials as a biblical scholar!

Ah, you’re right – this was an honest mistake, as I was typing quickly. I meant to say simply that Paul himself never claims to have met the historic Jesus – he was not an eyewitness of his ministry or of his supposed resurrection.

Well, we usually believe people we respect as opposed to people we have contempt for. Since you have contempt for Paul (you must think him a liar), I wouldn’t expect you to believe him.

I don’t have contempt for Paul. My impression of him is that he sincerely thought that his epileptic fit – or whatever it was – was a vision granted by zombie Jesus.

I obviously think he’s wrong on this point.

 

[tonyrey]

You are one crazy Catholic!

Is that supposed to be philosophical reasoning? You’ve come to the wrong forum…