Diogenes the Cynic

A Judean king, probably Hezekiah, specifically but it could also be read as a poetic description of the ideal king. The "mighty God" thing is symbolic, not literal.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning since the disagreement was about whether gentiles had to fully convert to Judaism. How does that require a historical Jesus?

SLD

Well, it doesn't require an historical Jesus, but it does seem to me to indicate that the original movement was purely Jewish and Paul, the outsider was creating another religion on top of the original movement. To me that points towards a possible historical Jesus movement. People might invent Gods, but I don't see them inventing a controversy with the brother of this alleged God.

SLD

Rick Sumner

Paul was a Pharisee.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

greyline

aChristian, if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus life and words, then do you have an explanation as to why Paul and the epistle writers were unaware of the gospel stories?

Why do they never quote Jesus directly, or even attribute any sayings to him?

This is evidence that the gospels were written after the epistles, which would make them too late to be eyewitness accounts.

SLD

No, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. He was however from Tarsus originally. His thought is clearly Greek. He's clearly more greek than Jewish. Hyamm Maccoby argues that his claim to be a Pharisee was merely for show and that it was unlikely that there were any Pharisees in 1st Century Tarsus when Paul was growing up. It would be highly unlikely that he would have been exposed to it as a child. Furthermore, Paul is supposedly a Roman Citizen, from a family of tentmakers. Being a Pharisee and a Roman Citizen makes no sense. The Pharisees did not care for Roman rule, at least not in the 1st Century, if ever. From their lot were drawn a lot of the more zealot revolutionaries, of which Jesus is one.

Paul does claim to have studied Judaism in Jerusalem and became a servant of the High Priests. But this also contradicts his claim of being a Pharisee; the High Priests came from the Sadducees crowd, and not the Pharisees. Maccoby also holds that Paul's claim to study under the great Gamaliel during this time is absurd since it was not known for him to take pupils from outside of Judea. That may be a stretch, but it seems to me that Paul is a frustrated Pharisee at best - he wanted to be one, and their rejection of him led him to demonize them in his writings.

OK, the psychology of Paul is difficult to pin down without any chance at Cross examination; but in any event, his claim to be a Pharisee just doesn't make sense.

SLD

Skeptical

Not to belabor the point, however...

Let me guess, you read some papers by Christian apologists with no background whatsoever in this sort of phenomena, only personal incredulity "there's not way they could have imagined this....", and on that basis you concluded they were right. If I'm wrong, cite your sources. I have cited 3 to you by experts in the field that specifically address the question of hallucinations and delusions.

But please, do not cite me some Christian apologetic, only hard research.


And again, you start with the argument from personal incredulity. Honestly, I don't know why I bother. Let me be blunt.

You have not done the proper research and you obviously do not have the proper background to address this issue. I'm not trying to be unkind, but saying "I read a few papers", probably Christian apologetics (am I wrong?), and giving me an argument from personal incredulity shows me you have not taken the question seriously and have not examined it.

I will make no further posts on this particular topic. I have demonstrated some of my sources to you and until you seriously consider the question by examining research by experts in this particular field and stop giving me arguments from personal feeling there is no point in my wasting my time on it further.

Refer to the sources I gave you earlier if you want to actually consider the topic. You claim you want to "honestly" consider your views, you can start there.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't even think you have to posit hallucinations. That would imply that there was any sort of historical "appearance" event to begin with. I'm not convinced that any apostle ever made such a claim.

Vorkosigan

I totally agree. Anyone can see that it is not real human beings imagining it, but fictitious accounts based on earlier sources.

Vorkosigan

norma98026

Why should we be surprised that God can raise the dead? If anyone can do it, then surely he can, otherwise what kind of god would he be? If God -- the one who created time, the universe, the elements, energy, and life -- exists, then it is totally within his power to bring someone back to life.

Of course saying or writing something doesn't make it true. Even if a lot of people say it. But the reverse could well be true. That is, witnessing an event that truly happened, particularly if it were noteworthy, might prompt someone to write it down for posterity. In fact, if a bunch of people saw someone walking around who had been dead, it would be surprising if someone didn't record it! Over 500 people at various times saw Jesus alive after he died by crucifixion. He walked and talked with people, invited them to touch him, and he had something to eat (fish).

HeavyMetalBard, why do you think so many people automatically throw out the possibility of resurrection of the dead?

Well, I'm off to make an airport run.
Later.
Norma in Seattle