Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

And we are back, now you are saying that the visions that Paul had where lies, (not delusions) you are simply arbitrarily changing from one view to another. Please define you view…………….does the video represent your view?

Or perhaps the whole story was made up. People such as David Koresth and Jim Jones not only were willing to tell lies for a greater cause that they believed in, but ultimately die for those beliefs in contradiction to what @Jollybear has claimed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, look, ill make a exchange deal with you. Ill answer your question about prophesies if you answer my pending questions on variation vs contradiction, on memory, on pointing out pauls suposid contradictions in his three repeats of his demascus experience and tell me HOW a person can make up a false claim that originates with themselves and then somehow make themselves TRULY believe it?

Ill watch the video tonight. Im crunched on time.

Sounds like a deal. Take your time watch the video when you can.

 

[leroy]

Again, you are concluding that only because your myth fails if that is not what he did. That is not a valid reason to say that is what he did.

.

I am concluding that because someone, without the intent of lying, who was in a position to know, wrote about it. This is how ancient history works. Documents that where written by people who were in a position to know are usually considered reliable, the burden proof is on the guy who claims that the author is lying

 

[leroy]

We don't know what the apostles said. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. The left no record.

Again, for example, according to Paul, the author of Luck and the author of John Peter saw the risen Jesus. So what happened.

Peter had an hallucination? Peter lied to the authors of these books? These authors invented the lie? What is your view?

 

[leroy]

Or perhaps the whole story was made up. People such as David Koresth and Jim Jones not only were willing to tell lies for a greater cause that they believed in, but ultimately die for those beliefs in contradiction to what @Jollybear has claimed.

yes "perhaps" "perhaps" "perhaps"

So your view is that Paul became a Christian for whatever reason, but then he invented (lied) that he saw the risen Jesus to gain credibility and followers? Is that you view?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am concluding that because someone, without the intent of lying, who was in a position to know, wrote about it. This is how ancient history works. Documents that where written by people who were in a position to know are usually considered reliable, the burden proof is on the guy who claims that the author is lying

People who have a cause do not think of it as lying. Look at Christian apologists. They do not seem to realize it but professional apologists all tend to be "liars for Jesus". When it comes to certain beliefs the mind will cause you to bend the truth to fit one's beliefs. To a mild extent you do it yourself. You conclude that Paul had to have interviewed the 500 when nothing in the Bible even implies that. Paul was a very driven man that thought he knew more about Jesus than those that followed him. Again this is not uncommon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, for example, according to Paul, the author of Luck and the author of John Peter saw the risen Jesus. So what happened.

Peter had an hallucination? Peter lied to the authors of these books? These authors invented the lie? What is your view?

If you mean "Luke" I do not think that he ever claimed that. In fact at the start of Luke you will see the author claim he was not an observer. And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "John Peter". When looking at the authors of books you should research into what modern scholars believe and why. The apostles for the most part were uneducated and did not write anything. That was quite common back then. Literacy was at a very low rate compared to today. That does not mean that they were not intelligent, public education did not exist at that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes "perhaps" "perhaps" "perhaps"

So your view is that Paul became a Christian for whatever reason, but then he invented (lied) that he saw the risen Jesus to gain credibility and followers? Is that you view?

That is what logic and the evidence tells us. For example when looked at the "Road to Damascus" story appears to have been created from whole cloth. Damascus was not a Jewish city. How would they find these supposed followers of Jesus there and why would the local government allow a group of Jews from outside of their area kidnap some of their citizens? Historically it was a city with many religions so a new minor sect would not be anything new or anything to be concerned about.

 

[leroy]

People who have a cause do not think of it as lying. Look at Christian apologists. They do not seem to realize it but professional apologists all tend to be "liars for Jesus". When it comes to certain beliefs the mind will cause you to bend the truth to fit one's beliefs. To a mild extent you do it yourself. You conclude that Paul had to have interviewed the 500 when nothing in the Bible even implies that. Paul was a very driven man that thought he knew more about Jesus than those that followed him. Again this is not uncommon.

No Paul did not interview them,
The 500 come fro an early Creed. Paul is quoting from that Creed

 

[leroy]

If you mean "Luke" I do not think that he ever claimed that. In fact at the start of Luke you will see the author claim he was not an observer. And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "John Peter". When looking at the authors of books you should research into what modern scholars believe and why. The apostles for the most part were uneducated and did not write anything. That was quite common back then. Literacy was at a very low rate compared to today. That does not mean that they were not intelligent, public education did not exist at that time.

According to Luke, Peter saw the risen Jesus.

So did luke lie? Did Peter lie to luke,? Was peter having halucinations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Paul did not interview them,
The 500 come fro an early Creed. Paul is quoting from that Creed

Where? I have been asking that and you simply declare that it exists. Yet it is not mentioned anywhere else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to Luke, Peter saw the risen Jesus.

So did luke lie? Did Peter lie to luke,? Was peter having halucinations?

You mean the author of Luke, I hope. It is unlikely that the author of Luke was Luke the associate of Paul. The author of Luke may not even have talked with Peter at all. Peter died in 64 AD and Luke is thought to have been written between 80 and 110 AD:

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

Stories grow with the telling. A story can be wrong without it being a lie.

 

[leroy]

You mean the author of Luke, I hope. It is unlikely that the author of Luke was Luke the associate of Paul. The author of Luke may not even have talked with Peter at all. Peter died in 64 AD and Luke is thought to have been written between 80 and 110 AD:

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

Stories grow with the telling. A story can be wrong without it being a lie.

So the author of Luke lied ? is it your view ?

 

[leroy]

Where? I have been asking that and you simply declare that it exists. Yet it is not mentioned anywhere else.

1 Cor. 15:3-5

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve

The text (in red) implies that he received the information from some other source, and we know that he went to Jerusalem to see James, John and Peter. Paul had access to primary sources of information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the author of Luke lied ? is it your view ?

Not what I said. Go back and reread the post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 Cor. 15:3-5


The text (in red) implies that he received the information from some other source, and we know that he went to Jerusalem to see James, John and Peter. Paul had access to primary sources of information.

No, that is merely someone's interpretation. That is not evidence. Once again you are making an unjustified assumption.

 

[leroy]

Not what I said. Go back and reread the post.

You have said many contradictory things,



So your view is that the appearance to Peter was just a legend? Peter never saw anything, and never claimed to have seen anything?

 

[leroy]

No, that is merely someone's interpretation. That is not evidence. Once again you are making an unjustified assumption.

Everything in ancient history is “someone’s interpretation” by your logic we should drop all our knowledge from ancient history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have said many contradictory things,



So your view is that the appearance to Peter was just a legend? Peter never saw anything, and never claimed to have seen anything?

Why are you so quick to jump to faulty conclusions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything in ancient history is “someone’s interpretation” by your logic we should drop all our knowledge from ancient history.

No, you should simply avoid using terribly biased sources.

Did you watch the video that I linked? It explains using the history of the time why the Road to Damascus story was likely to be a lie. Paul appears to have lied there. Remember he never saw Jesus and needed an excuse for his "authority". He is not that different from Cartman: