Johnny Skeptic

I invite Andrew Criddle, Roger Pearse, Gakusei Don and Lee Merrill, or actually any other Christians for that matter, to reply to Diogenes the Cynic's first reply in the thread titled 'What about the 500 eyewitnesses?' Diogenes says that there is no evidence what the apostles said, or even that they ever existed. Please don't anyone reply to this here. Please visit the other thread to view or make replies.

Diogenes the Cynic

Link

GakuseiDon

I thought his comments were quite reasonable.

Johnny Skeptic

Why thank you, but I am sure that you know that James Holding et al will not agree with you.

Vinnie

There is no evidence who existed? The apostles or the 500?

Vinnie

Johnny Skeptic

Diogenes meant the apostles, but I don't believe that there were even 500 people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, let alone 500 people who actually were eyewitnesses.

Diogenes the Cynic

I meant the apostles, but you can throw the 500 in there too.

(FYI, I'm not a mythcist. I lean slightly towards an HJ, but I also acknowledge that there isn't any conclusive proof).

Vinnie

I take it you are saying, by this, there is no conclusive evidence for "the Twelve" and that you are not saying there was no historical Peter. This is natural if you lean towards an HJ which makes its only obvious that he had followers. The independent attestation for someone like Peter is enormous--not only that--it occurs common to friend and foe in the sense that some of it is negative (e.g GMark). In addition, we have contemporay-primary data from Paul.

The Twelve--if this group doesn't go back to Jesus' ministry it started shortly after. I don't remember if I accept the historicity of the twelve or no. My view seems to change depending on the day of the week.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I honestly don't know and don't care. A lack of evidence for historicity does not argue for non-historicity--unless we expect that event to clearly be evidenced.

It wouldn't be the first mass hallucination in the world's history.
or
Maybe Paul fudged the numbers.
or
Maybe he made it all up.
or
Maybe a large group of people had a real strong religious experience one day and this view was amalamated into "seeing the risen Jesus".
or
Maybe a combo package.

I don't know what was in Paul's head and I doubt anyone else does on this issue either.

Vinnie

Johnny Skeptic

Nor does a lack of evidence for historicity argue for historicity.

I do not believe that such was the case. Luke 24:33-34 say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon (Peter).� The word “indeed� confirms that the group had no doubts regarding Simon’s claim. Luke 24:34 in the New International version says "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Again, notice the assuredness of the declaration, including the exclamation point used by the translators. The New American Standard Bible says “saying, The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.� The use of the word “really� indicates assuredness. What we have here is a unanimous belief in the Resurrection by that group not based upon seeing Jesus, but based solely upon the testimony of one man, even though initially, virtually no one believed that Jesus would rise from the dead.

I don't think so.

I dont' think so. I think that someone in the 2nd or 3rd century made it up, or that some writer had an innocent but inaccurate revelation about the 500 eyewitnesses. Many religious texts contain innocent by inaccurate revelations.

It is highly unlikely that 500 people will see the same thing at the same place at the same time. At any rate, the texts say that Jesus appeared to 500 people, not that they recognized him from a close distance, touched him or spoke with him. Matthew says that when Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee, some still doubted, so maybe all of the 500 eyewitnesses doubted too.