Board index ‹ Bible

[jimwalton]

> How do you know that's exactly the same as original version of what paul wrote?

The only way to discredit the text is to deny the evidence and make up a fictional different story. The text of 1 Corinthians 15.1-8 has no textual discrepancies. If you want to make a case that the text has changed, you need to posit evidence to that effect.

> Did he speak to any of the 500?

The implication is that he had spoken to at least some of them and knew who they were. He seems to know most are still alive and some have died. He purpose in mentioning it seems clear enough: Go talk to them yourselves and check what I'm saying if you doubt my words.

> Did paul have any way of confirming the extraordinary claims of any of the 500 witnesses?

Yes, Paul says he saw Jesus, too. Not in a visionary sense, but for real, but not before Jesus ascended, as the other disciples saw him (1 Cor. 15.8).

> There are people today who see visions/hallucinations and believe it's real and interact with it as if it's real.

Of course there are. What you need to substantiate is what makes you think the apostles fall into this category. We get to read their writings. They don't come across as madmen. When you read Edgar Allan Poe or late Nietzsche, you can see the madness creeping in. Not so in the Gospels. Read Peter's speeches in Acts chapters 2-5 and following.

> Also, was this terminology in Paul's original texts?

Yes. The texts are not doubted, even by critical scholars.

> Who documented this extraordinary claim?

The eyewitnesses.

> Who questioned the men to confirm their extraordinary testimony?

Many.

> The unconfirmed authors of the Bible and people theses authors wrote about claimed jesus was resurrected?

Though the writings of the Gospels are subject to great debate, the writings of Paul are not. He's sort of an ace-in-the-hole, so to speak. We have some letters by him that are undisputed by scholars that they were written by Paul, originally a non-believer, a persecutor of Christians, converted to faith in Christ. Historically speaking he's a fantastic source.

- He's a hostile source, to begin with (Gal. 2.1-10, AD 49-55). He names Peter and John as disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus. According to Paul, the leaders of the Jerusalem church in AD 50 certified that Paul was preaching the same gospel message they were.
- He's an early source
- He claims to be an eyewitness
- He knew Jesus's disciples
- He certified the same gospel message

> Shouldn't the questions be: did they really see him and did anyone question them about what they saw?

Those were the questions. Many people questioned them. Read the book of Acts.

> What route?

You claim that they claim to these conclusions under the influence of hallucinogens. The historical evidences we have are that the men who wrote the Bible were normal people whose lives had been changed by the reality of the physical resurrection of Jesus. We can read what they wrote, we can read what others said about them, and we can see how history was changed by their claims. If you want to make a different claim (the "route" of logic that they were ingesting psychogenics), you have to arrive at this conclusion by the route of fabricating evidence. There is no objective or evidence to lead someone through this route to the conclusion you have contrived.

> People have written that the disciples lives changed. How does their life changing confirmed that what they saw was real? ... If they were willing to die for what they saw, does that mean what they saw rad real?

Maybe you've read some of the history of Watergate. When people's lives are threatened, they squeal. Nobody but nobody goes down for a lie.

Maybe you've seen the movie "Zero Dark Thirty." The character Dan (a torturer) says, "It's cool, that you're strong and I respect it, I do. But in the end, everybody breaks, bro. It's biology."

Nobody dies for what they know to be a lie. Nobody dies for what they saw under the effects of psychogenetic substances.

> There is no evidence for the contrary in a collection of books translated and hand picked from over a hundred gospels by the members of the church, and there are no original, does that mean what they saw was real?

You ludicrously overestimate the power of the Church Fathers to control all manuscripts across the Empire.

> If "they shared (preached) to others on the basis that Jesus really, historically, physically rose from the dead" does that mean jesus actually did rise from the dead?

No, we have to examine all the evidences, pursue all the alternatives, and use both evidence and logic to pursue to hypothesis.