Toto

Regarding the alleged 500 eyewitnesses: the case for interpolation is given by Robert Price in this article. Or you can just read the passage and notice that the 500 eyewitnesses are stuck in the middle of a structured account, and stick out like a sore thumb.

You would have to be particularly naive to think that there were an actual group of 500 people who saw the risen Christ on the basis of this passage.

skunker

Toto, I agree, but I found something really compelling that Paul says later:

"If you don't believe me, you can ask them".

For me, that's a pretty profound statement. On one missionary journey, Paul travels to Athens and speaks at the Areopagus, where he claims that over 500 people were witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, many still alive at the time.

Sure, it would have been nice to have additional statements from the witnesses, but I think that it's really useless. There's enough from the other epistles. I don't see how other accounts from witnesses would haven't benefited the resurrection account anymore with what it already contains.

stonewall1012

Toto:"Should we take Paul's word for it that five hundred people saw the risen Jesus? We have no names, nor independent testimony, from any of them. Not that I know of anyway. As far as I can tell, Paul never even saw Jesus 'in the flesh'."

Exactally what would an "independent" eyewitnesses look like? for example if another author claimed to "investigate" the things that happend and he came back with 500 witnesses is that independent? Or does "independent" witness mean some one who didn't believe Christ "rose" from the dead but DID believe there were 500 witnesses. If the supposed witness believed there were 500 witness but didnt' believe Jesus rose from the dead... why would this supposed "independent" witness even bother recording it? What would be the purpose of recording witnesses to an event that the author didn't believe happened?

IE. Would you worry about finding the witnesses for the Roswell landing if you didn't believe there was an alien landing at Roswell? Likewise why would a non believer bother writing about witnesses to an event he didn't believe happened?

I thought in historical documentation we gave the author benefit of the doubt unless proven completely wrong or demonstrated that 500 witnesses was intended in some way other than: There are 500 people who saw the risen Jesus.

You seem to assume that it's the plain ordinary reading of the texts that needs to prove it's veracity not the other way around. Do you have evidence that Paul was lying? I will read the article posted and comment upon it later...

Deus Ex

Perhaps you had better read the article Toto linked. Interpolation seems likely.

aa5874

So, is it not also naive to think that the 12 twelve saw Jesus alive? The numbers don't really matter,10,000, 500, 12 or just one.

Paul claimed Jesus rose from the dead and in order for Paul to maintain his claim he MUST also claim that people saw Jesus after he ROSE from the dead so as to corroborate his claim.

The claim by itself, that Jesus ROSE from the dead, as stated by Paul, is most likely not true, even if there were no witnesses, and whether or not the passage is interpolated.

Toto

Only if Paul actually said this at the time. It seems more likely that it was written later to give a ring of authenticity to the claim - but since we have no names, there is no way of asking them.

This is confused. Paul writes about the 500 in the letter to the Corinthians (if he wrote it.) Paul does not write about speaking in Athen/

I am sorry, but I can't figure out what you are trying to say here. There is enough what from the other epistles? Do you think that there is any confirmation of the Resurrection in any of its possible versions?

Toto

Please stop putting my screen name on things that other people posted.

...

THIS IS NOT TRUE. No one gets any "benefit of the doubt." Christian apologists have invented this rule to try to get their obviously fanciful records accepted as history. Real history doesn't work that way.

That is how things work in the real world - if you assert that a document is true, you have to show that it is.

Paul does say that he is not a liar. Why would he need to say that if there weren't some sort of suspicion?

But Paul might not have been a liar - he might have been repeating an unfounded rumor, or his original letter might have been added to.

stonewall1012

I would like to first address the factual errors I found in the cited article:

“All scholars now admit that the author of this gospel simply cannot have been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, since he employs secondary sources (Mark and Q), themselves patchworks of well-worn fragments.”

To my knowledge not ALL Scholars have dumped Matthew as the originating author of the Book of Matthew. I feel little compelled to prove this as the author makes a grievous error concerning Q. Q is not a document. It has never been found. There is no reference to Q in any historical documents. Hence the name Q. Q is an idea created to synthesize the first three Gospels similarity in language use and even some exact language duplication. It is a hypothesis; mainly an attempt at explanation. Secondly, scholarship has vacillated back and forth over the years exactly who copied whom.

“all textual evidence before the third century has mysteriously vanished.”

This is either hyperbole or stupidity. Textual fragments exists that date quite far back. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is at the most liberal dating a 2nd century portion of John. Note he did not say some or entire documents he said “All textual evidence” either he is exaggerating or purposefully deceiving us.

Space prevents me from going in too deeply but the crux of Mr. Rice's argument is that Paul's 1Corinthian 15:6 is an interpolation basically because it doesn't fit. The largest flaw I found in his argument is that he must "listen" to the silence.

My wife some times bothers me when I'm silent she thinks I am angry at her or upset in general. However I am simply thinking. It's ironic how often silence will tell us more about our own disposition than about our subject. Mr. rice didn't just believe it was interpolated the entire Pauline corpus is a forgery. A dubious assertion at best.

I would like you obvious defenders to propose how this interpolation occurred. It is insufficient to say ... 1 Corinthians is a forgery... who forged it when... how did it get accepted by the early church?

storytime

Doesn't the story say that 500 people came forth out of their graves when Jesus was crucified and they walked among the people, and Paul saying some were still alive unto this day?

Deus Ex

Matthew 27:

52- And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53- And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

There was no number given for the amount of risen saints during Matthew's earthquake story.

The 500 were supposedly normal people who witnessed the risen Jesus. We don't hear anymore about Matthew's risen saints.