andrewcriddle

The resurrection is certainly central to Paul and he claims that in this he is following early tradition. (See 1 Corinthians 15)

Some scholars have argued that there were early versions of Crhistianity in which the resurrection was unimportant but I'm doubtful. The arguments tend to involve hypothetical reconstructions of the views of the supposed 'Q community'.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

You didn't answer my question. I asked you "What external records are there regarding the post-Resurrection claims and activities of the disciples?"

andrewcriddle

There are really no external records in that sense about the apostles. (ie evidence genuinely independent of Christian tradition.)

However Paul's letters are first hand evidence about him and his beliefs, probably in some ways more reliable than evidence by an outsider.

(I'll be away this weekend so I won't be able to reply again till Monday.)

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

The followers of other religions could use the same argument against you.

Paul did not provide any first hand evidence, or even any provable second hand or third hand evidence. A vision is most certainly not evidence. Paul had never heard Jesus speak, so there was no way that he could have recognized his voice. Paul's lack of any significant details at all about the life of Jesus is suspicious.

What external, non-Christians records are there of the life of Paul, his persecution of Christians and the trial of Jesus?

andrewcriddle

I agree that In studying the early history of almost all ancient religions one has to largely rely on statements by believers.

In general I would regard such statements as mostly in good faith ie the believer may well be wrong but is not deliberately being radically dishonest.

Without such a presumption it would be very difficult to study ancient religions at all.
Strictly speaking we don't know whether Paul had heard Jesus before, it is quite possible that he was for example, present in some minor capacity when Jesus was interrogated by the Jewish authorities before being condemned by Pilate. (I'm not saying this happened I'm just pointing out that there is no evidence against it.)
The TF in Josephus, the statement by Tacitus about the Fire of Rome, the statement about the killing of the 'wise king' by Mara bar Serapion, and the statement about the execution of Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, are all arguable examples of non-Christian testimony about the trial of Jesus.

There is no non-Christian testimony about Paul of any value whatever.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: Getting back on topic, in your opening post you said "Johnny Skeptic asked me to start a thread about prophecy so here goes." Are you suggesting that Jesus was the suffering servant mentioned in Isaiah 53? If not, then you have not given me an example of a fulfilled Bible prophecy.

You started another thread on a Bible prophecy, but I have forgotten the title. What was it?

andrewcriddle

Jeremiah and return from Exile

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: Getting back on topic, in your opening post you said "Johnny Skeptic asked me to start a thread about prophecy so here goes." Are you suggesting that Jesus was the suffering servant mentioned in Isaiah 53? If so, where is your evidence? If not, you are in a distinct minority among fundamentalist Christians.

andrewcriddle

I personally believe that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53.

I haven't claimed that this can be proved to the satisfaction of an impartial adjudicater. I don't think it can be proved in that sense.

What I was trying to show is that the belief among early Christians that Jesus did fulfil Isaiah 53 is plausible to someone who takes the prophecy a/ seriously b/as part of the prophecies of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

To someone for whom arguments about the authority and coherence of Scripture are not valid; the claim that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 will not be convincing.

However these basic premises would have been common ground both to the early Christians and to their early opponents.

Andrew Criddle

(I'm sorry to keep saying this but I'll be away over the weekend and won't be able to reply till Monday.)

Johnny Skeptic

Nor can a host of other claims. My point is, of what use is the supposed prophecy to "unbelievers," who after all are the very group of people who you are trying to influence? You state the obvious. Once a person becomes a fundamentalist Christian, as I was for over 35 years, the entire Bible is automatically taken at face value. So, the prophecy is of little value to people who are already Christians. in fact, a good percentage of Christians are not familiar with the prophecy, especially in the third world countries.

Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham praises the book, but I have no idea why. The authors cite a lot of documented research that proves that the major factors that account for religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age. I suggest that you buy the book and read it. A loving and all-powerful God would never allow the spreading of the supposedly most important message in human history to be spread by means of foot, horse, mule, camel, boat etc., at a pace that makes a Galapagos tortoise seem like a race horse by comparison. Over the centuries, millions of people have died without ever having heard the Gospel message. Since God did not deem it necessary let those millions of people know about the Gospel message, why did he deem it necessary to let anyone know about the Gospel message. Selective favoritism regarding who gets to hear the Gospel message is not a rational concept. If God does not exist, then it is to be expected that the means of spreading the Gospel message would have been exactly the means that "have" spread the Gospel message.

But how many people "did" take the prophecy seriously, and why?

Again, you state the obvious.

What premises are those? As far as I am aware, there isn't any external evidence that Jesus fulfilled "any" of the Old Testament Scriptures that Christians believe are messianic Scriptures. For instance, Micah 5:2 says that someone would come from Bethlehem Ephratah who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. No one should blame the Jews who rejected Jesus, which might very well have been over 95% of the Jews.

Regarding supposedly messianic Old Testament Scriptures, obviously God went out of his way, in typical fashion I might add, to make sure that it "would not be" obvious to impartial observers that Jesus fulfilled various Old Testament Scriptures. The same goes for the Tyre prophecy. Had God told Ezekiel about Alexander's eventual conquest of the island settlement, then we would have something to talk about. Ezekiel was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, so his prediction that Nebby would attack Tyre was by no means a long shot.

What in the world does God have against showing himself more clearly? What does he have to gain by not doing so. What would humanity have to gain if he did show himself more clearly? The correct answer is, quite a lot. First of all, a lot less people would end up in hell. Second of all, there would be a lot less strife and wars among the followers of various religions. Actually, there would be very little strife since no one would have any need to argue about which God exists. In short, the more information we have, the more able we are to make better informed decisions that would definitely be of benefit to all of humanity. If God had chosen to show himself much more clearly than he has, would you object. Of course not. You would say that it is a good thing.