Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

The number of people that believe does not make something true. Regarding the existence of Jesus, it's a given that the majority of Christian scholars believe. All we have from the time in question is religious texts and religious claims that follow, so it is of no wonder that the topic remains, at least for some, controversial.

So now it does not matter that 500 people did not see Jesus.

Most scholars believe that there was a man name Jesus. That is what they accept as probably being true. You will not find that a majority believe in magic Jesus.

 

[lukethethird]

Paul claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

So was Paul lying or was he hallucinating? Which of the two do you consider more plausible?

Sometimes you seem to suggest that he was lying and other times you seem to suggest that he was hallucinating.

So Christianity may have began with a lie or an hallucination, hmmm.

 

[lukethethird]

So now it does not matter that 500 people did not see Jesus.

Most scholars believe that there was a man name Jesus. That is what they accept as probably being true. You will not find that a majority believe in magic Jesus.

Most scholars believe, so what does that tell us about scholars?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most scholars believe, so what does that tell us about scholars?

Hard to say. He was trying to use the fact that there is a widespread belief in a historical Jesus to support a belief in a magical Jesus. He was trying to misuse a statistic to support his beliefs. One needs to understand the difference between Abraham Lincoln:

And Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.

 

[leroy]

No, Paul's claim was that of a vision. Have you not read your Bible? Visions are another name for hallucinations.

Ok so pauls experience was a hallucination.

The 500 where a lie invented by Paul (or a tall tale

What about James the brother of Jesus? Paul reported that he saw the risen Jesus. ....did James had an hallucination, did Paul lied? Was it tall tale?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so pauls experience was a hallucination.

The 500 where a lie invented by Paul (or a tall tale

What about James the brother of Jesus? Paul reported that he saw the risen Jesus. ....did James had an hallucination, did Paul lied? Was it tall tale?

Hard to say. He may have been repeating a tale that he was told. His claim that there were 500 witnesses is not worth much.

 

[leroy]

Hard to say. He may have been repeating a tale that he was told. His claim that there were 500 witnesses is not worth much.

So James never saw anything and never claimed to have seen something , somebody invented a tall tale .....is this your view?

What about all the other witnesses like the woman, and the apostoles? Would explain these with tall tales? (I simply want to understand your view )

 

[Subduction Zone]

So James never saw anything and never claimed to have seen something , somebody invented a tall tale .....is this your view?

What about all the other witnesses like the woman, and the apostoles? Would explain these with tall tales? (I simply want to understand your view )

Read his letter. It is one of the shortest "book"s in the Bible:

He does not even mention the resurrection, nor any other miracles:

THE LETTER OF ST. JAMES

Once again, there are no eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Why is this so hard to understand? The Gospels were written more than a generation after the death of Jesus. Have you ever studied the book?

 

[leroy]

Read his letter. It is one of the shortest "book"s in the Bible:

He does not even mention the resurrection, nor any other miracles:

THE LETTER OF ST. JAMES

Once again, there are no eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Why is this so hard to understand? The Gospels were written more than a generation after the death of Jesus. Have you ever studied the book?

The letter is irrelevant

Again according to Paul James saw the risen Jesus, how do you explain this.

1 James had an hallucination, told Paul about it and Paul wrote about it

2 James lied to Paul about having such experience

3 Paul simply lied in his letter. James never saw anything and never claimed to have seen something.

4 some other option.


You don't need to justify your view, all you have to do is clarify and explain your view to me, so that I can understand it

 

[Subduction Zone]

The letter is irrelevant

Again according to Paul James saw the risen Jesus, how do you explain this.

1 James had an hallucination, told Paul about it and Paul wrote about it

2 James lied to Paul about having such experience

3 Paul simply lied in his letter. James never saw anything and never claimed to have seen something.

4 some other option.


You don't need to justify your view, all you have to do is clarify and explain your view to me, so that I can understand it

And Paul is the one that we have no reason to believe. You keep relying on one unreliable source. We already know that Paul was a few fries short of a happy meal. Why pay him any heed at all?

 

[Riders]

So now it does not matter that 500 people did not see Jesus.

Most scholars believe that there was a man name Jesus. That is what they accept as probably being true. You will not find that a majority believe in magic Jesus.

Well I would disagree. There is a lot, and I have found personally a lot of historians named and scholars I have already named who claim they do not believe Jesus existed at all.There is a growing number who believe Jesus was a myth not real.

However I see your point that those who believe mostly believe he was a guy named Jesus nothing else.

 

[Riders]

This is a video made that tells exactly how the Greek Helena mystery cults were truly Pagan and the Jews became a mystery Hellenistic cult and this i how Christianity as born.It actually shows how it was put together and seems to be very credible.

I have put stuff up about the Helena cults because Wiki says specifically Christianity was born out of the Helena culture but Christian have responded y saying yes it came from the Helena groups but only in the sense of the Greek culture not the Greek religion and this is why it was written in Greek

The new testament as written in classical Greek but it was the Greek Helena religion which was Monotheistic and Hedonothistic and Jews had already combined their Jewish beliefs with the Helena Monotheistic Pagan religion of the time.

To me one thing Christian can not and won't ever explain is why the new testament was written in Greek classical Greek not Hebrew, the language and writing style of Greek Helena Pagans. Sorry there is no defense.

 

[Riders]

So James never saw anything and never claimed to have seen something , somebody invented a tall tale .....is this your view?

What about all the other witnesses like the woman, and the apostoles? Would explain these with tall tales? (I simply want to understand your view )

Women would not count their ideas and witness would not have counted it i legend and written from a legend point of view.

 

[Riders]

Nobody denies that some scholars claim that Jesus never existed, but the concensus is that he did excist.

I disagree I think a lot don't believe he existed at all. i am finding a lot of scholar names on the net of scholars who do not believe he existed. You can not give me any reason for that.

 

[lukethethird]

And Paul is the one that we have no reason to believe. You keep relying on one unreliable source. We already know that Paul was a few fries short of a happy meal. Why pay him any heed at all?

Why not give Paul the benefit of the doubt for what he claims to have believed? Paul was no dummy, a religious fanatic, yes, but he knew what side his bread was buttered on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not give Paul the benefit of the doubt for what he claims to have believed? Paul was no dummy, a religious fanatic, yes, but he knew what side his bread was buttered on.

There is a saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence given is pathetically weak.

 

[Jollybear]

Paul was not a witness either. That puts him in their company.

Paul claimed to be a witness and refused recanting under persecution.

and how was my quote of Paul misconstrued? It means what it appears to mean. No added context changes that. That appears to be what you are doing. You are struggling to change the meaning of a verse based upon Paul's incorrect beliefs. This is your cognitive dissonance trying to defend your beliefs.

Do i have cognitive dessonance or do you? I didnt change anything. My point about what he said is in the text. People have twisted my words at times in my life, and im sure they did yours too, its no surprise that pauls words got twisted too. Even peter said there was things in pauls letters ignorant people twisted.

 

[Jollybear]

No, Paul's claim was that of a vision. Have you not read your Bible? Visions are another name for hallucinations.

Visions are not another name for halucinations.

Why is none of the real points and issues not being accounted for?

 

[lukethethird]

There is a saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence given is pathetically weak.

Paul claimed to have had a vision of the risen Christ, and claimed that what he learned about Christ came from reading ancient scriptures, what we now call the Old Testament. He claimed that Cephas, James, and 500 brothers also experienced what he experienced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul claimed to be a witness and refused recanting under persecution.

So what? Again, his writings indicate a man not of sound mind. The one that I quoted and you complained about comes to mind.

Do i have cognitive dessonance or do you? I didnt change anything. My point about what he said is in the text. People have twisted my words at times in my life, and im sure they did yours too, its no surprise that pauls words got twisted too. Even peter said there was things in pauls letters ignorant people twisted.

It appears that you were twisting Paul's words to make them appear to be less insane. His reasoning was poor. He thought "the end is near" it wasn't. That is a repeating theme that he spouted. People now try to claim it referred to how short life is or other unsupported beliefs. Sometime a person means what he says. No additional interpretation needed.