JoeWallack

JW:
Three (of course). A Spirited one to ascend and connect the "Light" Bull, and a Father and Son to spin Jacob's Ladder until it's Screwed in.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jaded_revenge

It takes numerous eye witnesses that exist, at least to start off with.
Simply saying that 'this was seen by (lets see, some round number, hmmm, 400... no, 500, yeh, thats the ticket) 500' does not a witness make.

Chili

But it is a word story Johnny not an account of history. The story is real and words are just used to describe it. In the absence of eyewitnesses one must wonder if we are meant to look in history or that possibly the story is just tied to history to make us look . . . albeit in the wrong direction but look for sure with earnesty and diligence until we find that we are wrong after all.

Amaleq13

This seems like a different question. I was addressing "how many" but this comment seems directed at "who would have been better".

If Cephas was respected, I assume his claim of having the risen Christ appear to him would have been accepted quite readily. Personally, I tend to think James (the Just) would have had a broader influence given, according to early Christian reports, his established reputation among his fellow Jews.

Johnny Skeptic

But should Peter's claim have been accepted? Why should the number of eyewitnesses have been limited? Wouldn't 10,000 claimed eyewitnesses have been much better? We actually do not have any idea at all how many people actually claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead.

Today, how many claimed eyewitnesses would it take to convince you that Jesus had returned to earth in physical form? I personally would not be convinced by any number of eyewitnesses. I would have to see, touch, and talk with him for myself. In addition, I would need sufficient evidnece of his supernatual powers. Further, he would have a lot of explaining to do about Hurricane Katrina and a host of other natural disasters. The power to rise from the dead and return to earth is an indication of power, but not goodness.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Fundamentally, the OP does not ask a meaningful or even particularly interesting question.

The general question is: How much evidence and of what kind is necessary to justify belief in a proposition? The answer is: All of it. The only way to come to a conclusion based on evidence is to consider all the evidence, and construct the simplest logically consistent set of propositions which explains all the evidence.

In the case of resurrection in general, the fundamental question is not how many eyewitnesses to a particular event would convince us of the truth of a resurrection event. The mistake is to consider those eyewitnesses in isolation. We have to consider all the evidence, including everything we've observed in medicine, physiology and biology (as well as physics) in addition to the testimony of those who say they have witnessed some "resurrection" event.

Amaleq13

From my perspective, no but I don't necessarily blame those who respected him for believing his story.

I think I see the problem. You are asking your question from the perspective of accepting Christian beliefs while I'm addressing it from the perspective of what I think actually happened. Never mind.

I don't respect anyone that much.

spin

Chew gotta a crystal ball dere, Johann? Chew pick 65 outtova hat or summin? Sutcha date's sointinly rawngg. Wendja reckon Mark hit de page? How lawng gafter Mark ja tink Matty was writ?


spin

Johnny Skeptic

That is of course the only rational conclusion today, and it was the only rational conclusion back then. Even one million eyewitnesses back then or today would be insufficient evidence.