DaMan121

Have you any positive positions about our universe at all?

spin

I was specifically referring to the discussion of resurrection, so the universe is a bit of a tangent.


spin

Amaleq13

Agreed but, unless you are referring to the apparent certainty with which the conclusion was proffered, it seems misleading to refer to a conclusion based on that as a "belief" in the sense that it requires faith to be accepted.

Following the very clear and unambiguous evidence of biology and physics to the conclusion that there is no reason to think anyone could ever recover from being "really, most sincerely dead" is simply rational thought at work.

chrisengland

[[*]the apostle paul. paul is a second-/third-hand source that cannot be accepted as valid testimony, even though he is a bit earlier than the gospels. his account of who heard and who saw what could have easily been passed on to him after being garbled through tradition. it's doubtful that he personally interrogated over 500 witnesses, and he seems to be at odds with the jerusalem/jewish based believers. he stresses his independence and records conflict with peter himself. his account of jesus' appearance to him would not be uncommon in that world, as far as mythical visions and revelations are concerned.

Didn't Paul meet some of the diciples?

Toto

Paul met the pillars of the Jerusalem Church, but he does not identify them as Jesus' disciples, or as having known Jesus at all (unless you interpret "Brother of the Lord" in a biological sense.) And he certainly did not give them the respect that would be due someone who was closer to Jesus than he ever was.

Agenda07

Two points to consider:

1. One of the key features of the Jesus story is the raising up of those who were looked down upon by pious Jews of the time (women, Samaritans, tax collectors, etc.) and the scorning of the 'pious' (Pharisees, High Priests). It makes narrative sense for Jesus to appear to women rather than men.

2. Having Jesus appear to women disenfranchises the apostles, and gives more weight to supporters of Paul (it's clear that the author of Mark didn't like the apostles very much, and especially disliked Peter).

chrisengland

Are you shore' I,ve just been looking at Acts and it says he met Peter at least' I thought it mentions some more' I'll look at it in more detail and then get back to you.

Toto

I assume that Acts is a later theological fiction, designed to demonstrate that the early founders of the church were of one mind on every significant question.

Acts has three contradictory versions of Paul's conversion. Acts has a high priest sending Paul out to Damascus to hunt down Christians, when the high priest was a Saducee and Paul at least claimed to be a Pharisee. Acts has Paul as a student of Gamaliel, who is then made to say that no one should try to shut up these Christians.

Where Acts contradicts Paul's letters, which would you choose to give more credit to?

chrisengland

I thought Paul actually said in one of his letters he met them.
As I said I,m not to sure' I,ll have a look and then get back to you.

Amaleq13

Yes, he says he met a guy named "Peter" and a guy named "James" but he never refers to or identifies them as disciples of Jesus.

Instead, he refers to them as "apostles" and argues that he is just as much an apostle as they are.