TexasScientist said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TexasScientist said:
JXL said:
TexasScientist said:
JXL said:
TexasScientist said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TexasScientist said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Quote:
You didn't soundly defeat anything. Paul didn't claim to witness the resurrection. How can he affirm something he wasn't present for? He only repeated what he heard, and he claimed most of what he heard was from "God" himself. How delusional is that?
Paul knew Jesus was crucified, and Jesus appeared to him, alive.
And Paul met and spoke directly with Jesus' disciples. It is highly, highly likely they would talk about Jesus' resurrection. Even if Paul is merely repeating what he heard from them, then we have an original author of a text (not unknown authors, as you claimed) who had direct contact with first-hand eye witnesses to the event (not embellished oral stories, as you claimed).
So give it up. You lose.
It' s not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of credibility. First of all you know that only seven of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him. There is no credible evidence other than his words that he talked to Jesus, God, or His messenger. History is full of people who make that claim. He's no more believable or credible than Joseph Smith. You only have Paul's assertions, and Paul's message and version of Christianity was different and in competition with what was taught to Peter and the other Jewish disciples, who more credibly talked with Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence for Paul's claims.
If it's a matter of credibility, then you lost on that one as well. Badly.
Yeah, it's a matter or winning or losing for you - you clearly tried to invalidate the resurrection testimony of the gospel, and you were soundly defeated by facts. That is why you are trying to change your argument here. You are all about lying and distorting to hurt someone else's faith. You are in an incessant battle with the truth of Jesus. You aren't even deterred when what you've said is clearly shown to be false. No, you move on to the next distortion and lie, hoping no one noticed. Because that 's your mission, your game.
But we noticed. And you lost. Badly. Take your ball and go home.
Credibility? My sources are Biblical Scholars.
Some Biblical scholars, sure. Others disagree.
Others who are not objective in their approach.
Because only people who agree with you could possibly be objective.
Do you really believe an objective evaluation of all of the available information regarding the origin of the various books/letters that made it into the Bible, including those that didn't, textual criticism, independent historical sources, and the physical laws of the universe, and human neuroscience/psychology, can support to two opposing views - religious and non religious? What about all of the other religions other than Christianity? Why are they not credible, but Christianity is?
The problem is your objectivity or lack thereof.
Give me an objective explanation of how a person who was crucified and died, came back to life. How did that physically happen? Don't you think, if all that is alleged to have occurred at any of the differing resurrection stories happened, that there would be some written description by one of the known contemporaneous chroniclers? As they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The objectivity of the resurrection lies in the assessment of written testimony of those who saw it happen, or saw the risen Jesus, like Paul, whom you have yet to, and never will, debunk. What's left is for us to decide if we believe them or not. To those who have faith in God, this wouldn't be a difficult belief.
After all, if God created life, how in heaven and on earth would He have any difficulty whatsoever in bringing someone back to life from death? Believing that something can't happen if it doesn't agree with your current understanding of reality is the very definition of bias, not objectivity. Not to mention, it isn't a scientific way to think.
There WERE contemporaneous chroniclers - they're called the gospel writers and Paul. If there were any others who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, you would dismiss them just the same. Unobjectively, I might add.
What kind of extraordinary evidence could one expect from the first century? How about simple, ordinary men who powerfully proclaimed the risen Jesus, even if it meant leaving job, home, and family, and even if it meant getting killed for it? How about Paul, the most ardent persecutor and hater of Christianity, who ultimately became its most ardent believer and supporter? These men experienced something that changed and moved them
profoundly, to say the least. Quite extraordinary, indeed.