aa5874

Your argument is not logical at all.

Now, this is ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL, if the Pauline Jesus did exist he could ONLY be human.

If Jesus was a man and Paul claimed that the man was crucified and died but that he did see the very same man ALIVE then the man must HAVE SURVIVED the crucifixion.

There is NO other LOGICAL explanation if Jesus was a man and was really crucified.

A real man could NOT be actually dead and then resurrect.

If the Pauline Jesus was a real man when he was REMOVED from the cross he ONLY appeared to be dead.

If Paul SAW Jesus AFTER the Crucifixion, the Pauline Jesus SURVIVED the Crucifixion.

If Paul saw the Man alive, it is OBVIOUS that the man did NOT die as previously claimed.

It is ABSOLUTE FICTION that a MAN died for our sins when Paul ADMITTED he and OVER 500 people SAW the man ALIVE AFTER he was supposed to be dead.

It should be obvious and LOGICAL that while Paul was claiming the man DIED for our Sins that the Man could still be ALIVE and was being WITNESSED by other people.

Scotsguy44

I think that your response, whilst interesting in itself, is tangential to that of the original post and my response which focuses on what Paul believed and what can logically be derived from those beliefs.

However, to offer response:

With Thomas, Jesus urged him to place his fingers to his hands and his hands to his side (John 20:27).
That Jesus died is certain in as much as the narratives are concerned (see: Matt 27:45-28:20; Mark 15:33-16:8; Luke 23:44-24:12 and John 19:28-20:29).
Why suppose either only a divine character or a human character and exclude both divine and human?
I don’t see what would be impossible about a mortal killing a divine character in their human form? Further, what would prevent that divine character giving up their life (gave up the ghost)?
I do not see any narrative justification that the risen Jesus was not the same Jesus that had died and don’t know on what basis you make that assumption?
Lazarus was a human raised from death to life by Jesus (as was the daughter of Jairus) so there is precedent in the Gospels for humans being raised from the dead to life and that those persons were not different humans from who they were previously. If for them, why not for Jesus, being raised from the dead by God?

Thanks
Matt

aa5874

The resurrection of Lazarus in gJohn is ABSOLUTE Fiction, that is, the story is fiction whether or not Lazarus or Jesus did exist.

OLDMAN

At first they didn't realize it was Jesus. This happens twice if I'm not mistaken?

Chili

Only if you abuse the word fiction, which from the other side of the spectrum means that whatever exist in the imagination must exist in reality as well except maybe in that order , as in 'pink elephants' or 'absolute fiction' in that fiction has origin in the meaning of words and your absolute denies that here in fiction.

Scotsguy44

I’m not sure what argument of mine that you are claiming 'is not logical at all'. My post reflects the facts of the matters of what is in the text and makes no argument that I can see?

How does it logically and necessarily follow that if the Pauline Jesus did exist he could only be human? It appears to me that this is assumptive of the writings of Paul revealing only a human Jesus but that would be at best a very much questionable assumption and at worse flat our contradicted by what is written in the epistles of Paul.

Here is another alternative logical explanation if Jesus was a man and was really crucified but was then seen alive. God resurrected Jesus from the dead.

Note: I am not claiming truth for that alternative but, unless you are assuming in your statements either the truth of methodological or philosophical naturalism, then it is most certainly an alternative, and of course the presentation of such an alternative refutes your claim that ‘there is no other logical explanation’.
If you are making your claims based on those assumptions then yes, you might have a case but only with other people who grant you the validity or truth of those assumptions. To anyone not granting you that validity or truth (for example, myself) your assumptions would need to be established and not assumed before your statement could be considered true.

Thanks
Matt

Scotsguy44

Yes

Scotsguy44

Even if it was granted arguendo that the whole of the gospels are a fiction the point would remain that in that fiction there is textual precedent for people to die and be resurrected back to who they were (the same person) and not a different person.

Thanks
Matt

Solo

Hi Matt,
welcome to the forum. Nice to have another thoughtful individual here. As you will soon learn, not all contributors here are equally endowed in that department.

I think you indeed pointed to the issue at hand. In terms of strictly naturalistic philosophy, the proposition that a dead man walked and talked is indeed fiction, or rather, contradiction in terms. It is of course unclear what our numbered friend means by 'absolute fiction'. It appears the adjective serves an intensifier in the proposition that one may not contradict the terms on offer, on pain of agonized retorts and angry characterizations.

Further, it is to be noted here is that argument in the OP is one made by proxy. What aa.... really argues here is that Jesus could not be dead if he was seen alive. The assertion then carries with it an annex, namely that if Jesus was not dead after an ordeal on the cross, then he did not die for "our" sins. Unfortunately, I find that the form of the argument precludes a reasoned debate. Paul's proposition clearly addressed a group of believers, which subsequently organized themselves as a religious body.

It is clear that aa.... does not belong to that group, and that his effort here is simply to impugn Christianity, by asserting an alternate set of beliefs against it. Finally, aa.... does not appear to be forced in any way to confess the creed.

Since there is not a common set of assumptions on which to carry a reasonable debate, the germane question here is, is it worthwhile to carry on an unreasonable one.

Best,
Jiri

Chili

Nice words Jiri but also non-human is wrong in that one must first be human to be non-human as opposite to fully human or human-child and Jesus was never any of those but carried the sins of humanity which is not plural but denotes a condition of being as presented in the Cathegories of Aristotle.

And so if humanity is not a noun to have existence in being, such as man who cannot be non-man nor does man have a 'manity' of his own wherefore then humanity is a 'quality' of man to make non-human in language absurd.