Biblo

In 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, Paul said he met Peter, James and John, and they all claimed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. The church fathers report their martyrdom. Since people don't die for something they know is a lie, what naturalistic explanation could account for their eyewitness claims?

spin

Paul talks throughout 1 Corinthians of Cephas. There are only two verses in Galatians, 2:7-8, which talk of Peter and they are in contrast with the context. Both the Epistle of the Apostles and Origen know of two separate people Cephas and Peter. One can't assume that Paul is talking about Peter.

As the gospels were written after Paul, you can't say what the relationship is between what Paul wrote and what is in the gospels. The latter could be reacting to or augmenting/changing the former.

If it's a lie, they don't have to know it's a lie. People die for their beliefs. Think of the Sikhs in India or the suicide bombers or burning Buddhist monks or christian martyrs. Do you know if they don't die for lies?


spin

Biblo

The only writings we have to consider are the first century writings so Epistles of the Apostles and Origen are irrelevent.

Paul is talking about Peter. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days" (Gal. 1.18).

People die for their beliefs, they truly believed. The disciples not only died for their beliefs but their eyewitnessing.

spin

Besides Paul which writings were written in the first century and how do you know?

You are using a defective bible. Check Nestle-Aland for the fact that the earliest tradition has Cephas.

You just ignored this:

Think of the Sikhs in India or the suicide bombers or burning Buddhist monks or christian martyrs. Do you know if they don't die for lies?

Please respond.


spin

Biblo

The reason we know his writings were in the first century was because he was not alive in the 2nd century and the church fathers report his writings, so obviously the first century writings precede the second century church fathers.

Dying for a belief in something is not the same thing as dying for eyewitnessing. You can explain away the belief as being false, but how do you explain away their eyewitnessing?

I am going to go with Peter, because Peter is so multiply corroborated. The context always refers to the first century eyewitness Apostle, not some other person.

Tom Sawyer

Lots of people in cults have died for things they were eyewitnesses to and yet were false. What makes the disciples so different from the rest of them?

Biblo

It depends on the nature of what they eyewitness. What the disciples eyewitnessed was Jesus alive from the dead which is only possible if He is God since man can't resurrect himself.

Julio

“Eyewitnesses” in the NT are to be taken in a context of superstition.
There is a conspicuous example in Acts 5:11, where it says that FEAR came upon all those who HEARD the story about Ananias and Sapphira's death. In other words, NOBODY actually saw anything. And since the story is lacking vital detail to be credible, we conclude no eyewitness is inspired. Bottom line: eyewitnesses are a deceptive source.

Biblo

The eyewitnesses are not be shroud in superstition, for it seems to me the many accounts cited are clearly physical in nature, eating with Jesus, talking with Him, touching Him and walking with Him. They couldn't have been any more clear.

spin

I said, "[b]esides Paul...."

It was the other writing you were trying to use, ie the gospels.

So the Jews during the reign of Antiochus IV who stood up for their beliefs and were martyred don't count according to your limiting rationale. The Sikhs who professed their faith when confronted with excruciating torture shouldn't be mentioned.

Try another way of limiting the issue so that you can exclude all but your christian martyrs.

You are clearly lacking in resources here. Peter, and I'm using the most respected Greek text available, is certainly extremely poorly attested in Galatians, except for 2:7-8. This is usually explained in scholarly analyses as scribal intervention to use the more expected Peter.


spin