Amos

That's easy. The 12 apostles were the eidetic images of Jesus and the 500 followers and disciples were the correct opinions held by Jesus that now become grounded with reality.

The twelve apostels were the shepherds who at one time were herding the sheep on the night Christ was born and the 500 were the sheep (correct opinions) being herded that night. Note that when Christ was born the shepherds we to admire but not enter the stable (as opposed to the Magi who entered). Here the shepherds and sheep were allowed to enter and become one with the divine nature (understanding) of Jesus as Christ (knowledge frees).

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

james-2-24

Sorry, you are wrong on this point. Judaism did not view such claims as blasphemous, nor was claiming to be the Christ or the Messiah blasphemous. This claim is made by Christians about Jews, but not by Jews themselves.

James.

james-2-24

Pauls' letters contain references to the historic Jesus, however when he speaks of the resurrected Jesus I agree that his references are spiritual. Most obvious explanation: Paul believes in an earthly Jesus who had a spiritual resurrection directly to heaven, he doesn't separate the ascension from the resurrection, for Paul (and for the disciples?) they were one in the same.

Only in the later gospels did the resurrection become physical, yet always from the earliest letters there is a pre-resurrection physical Jesus. So the trend is from a spiritual resurrection to a physical resurection, not from a spiritual Jesus to a phyiscal Jesus as the Jesus mythologists claim.

James.

james-2-24

Answer: to establish the authority credentials of the various communities who traced their leadership back to a particular apostle(s).

That is why much of the resurrection appearances are so concerned with who believed first, who doubted, who reached the tomb first etc. They appear as apologies for their own leaders (eg for the beloved disiple over Peter) and polemics against others (eg doubting thomas). These claims were very important in an atmosphere of multiple sects of Christianity and each group trying to argue they hold the true interpretation of Christianity.

James

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: james-2-24 ]</p>

sotzo

Hi Turton...good to speak to you again.

You wrote:

Sotzo, we have only Paul's claim that this ever happened, a claim on par with the nonsense one hears from missionaries all the time, speaking third hand of hundreds of witness to miracles. One can find the same statements about plenty of modern-day gurus, like Sai Baba. The stories are lies and exaggerations, of course. No "explanation" necessary. It's really about time this passage was laid to rest as proof of anything other than Paul's willingness to make up stories to impress his audience.

I see two arguments here of yours which attempt to support your claim that the passage is Paul purposely misleading his audience. 1) We only have Paul's claim (inferring that one claim is not enough to establish a fact) and 2) Other claims like Paul's exist...since they are false, Paul's is false. Both of these arguments are
fallacious. Further, Quentin (and other Jesus mythers) use the exact same passage to argue that Paul is referring to visions. It looks like your position is that Paul was purposely misleading his audience. Since your two arguments aboce are fallacious, what other evidence can you offer which would support your hyopthesis that Paul was inventing this.

Some gospels indicate a physical resurrection. The NT gospels were selected in part for compatilibility with that concept. it's not surprising that they reflect a physical resurrection.

In the context of my disucssion with Quentin, he has argued that Paul was Gnostic and held to an ahistorical Jesus and, therefore, the resurrection is merely a spiritual event. According to your view above, the Gospels were selected to filter out such spiritual resurrections and posit, instead, a physical one. So, taking you and Quentin together, what you essentially have is a hyopthesis which includes, Paul either deliberately lying or believing that the appearance was a vision. For honesty's sake, these positions need to be defended and not chalked up to preconceived notions about what Paul would or would not write in particular situations.

It's really about time this passage was laid to rest as proof of anything other than Paul's willingness to make up stories to impress his audience.

The reason that the passage has not been laid to rest is that every time a skeptic attempts to question its authenticity, he/she has to come up with wild interpolation hypotheses (for one example, refer to the debate transcript between Price and Craig). Further, there is all kinds of evidence against your hypothesis that Paul was trying to impress his audience. One of many lines of evidence is that such a hyopthesis does not jive with Paul's attitude toward the churches in general. For instance, when Paul was being "worshipped" in the Corinthian church along with Apollos and Peter, he goes to GREAT lengths to say that they should be united under Jesus and that Jesus was the one that he came to preach (and not himself). These kinds of passages can be multiplied and they are evidence against a Paul who is trying to impress.

Cheers,
jkb

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I see two arguments here of yours which attempt to support your claim that the passage is Paul purposely misleading his audience. 1) We only have Paul's claim (inferring that one claim is not enough to establish a fact)

...actually, it would be prima facie evidence that such a thing had occurred, were it not for the much stronger....

and 2) Other claims like Paul's exist...since they are false, Paul's is false. Both of these arguments are fallacious.

Consider it the argument from human nature. Does Paul exaggerate and lie? Of course. Do you know any missionary who does not? All religion-pushers lie, it is in the nature of religion pushing.

The third line of argument, which you have left out, is that since Resurrections cannot occur, Paul is either repeating a lie someone else told him, or else he is inventing a falsehood himself, or there is some complex combination of lies and group suggestion going in. In any case, someone, somewhere, is lying about these non-existent witnesses.

Further, Quentin (and other Jesus mythers) use the exact same passage to argue that Paul is referring to visions. It looks like your position is that Paul was purposely misleading his audience.

Why yes, that is my position, though not some much misleading as simply exagerrating. But note that Paul lying about receiving visions -- which is almost certainly the case -- is not incompatible with Quentin's claim that Paul is referring to visions. Visions are very convenient.

Since your two arguments aboce are fallacious, what other evidence can you offer which would support your hyopthesis that Paul was inventing this.

Well, as I said, there is the impossibility of Resurrections...

Mike: Some gospels indicate a physical resurrection. The NT gospels were selected in part for compatilibility with that concept. it's not surprising that they reflect a physical resurrection.

Satzko: According to your view above, the Gospels were selected to filter out such spiritual resurrections and posit, instead, a physical one.

Careful. My position is that the NT gospels were so selected, not all gospels.

So, taking you and Quentin together, what you essentially have is a hyopthesis which includes, Paul either deliberately lying or believing that the appearance was a vision.

Yes, either of these is possible. Although I lean toward the deliberately lying.

For honesty's sake, these positions need to be defended and not chalked up to preconceived notions about what Paul would or would not write in particular situations.

What "preconcieved notions?" There is the little matter of the impossibility of Resurrections, and the nature of human social communication.

The reason that the passage has not been laid to rest is that every time a skeptic attempts to question its authenticity, he/she has to come up with wild interpolation hypotheses (for one example, refer to the debate transcript between Price and Craig).

I haven't mentioned interpolation. I've simply pointed out the rather obvious fact that missionaries, especially top missionaries, are consummate, fluent, and sincere liars. Ever watch the 700 Club? PTL? Jimmy Swaggart? Jerry Falwell in action? How long a list do I need?

In addition, there are no Resurrections, so Jesus could not have appeared to the 500......and of course, the passage lacks detail? Where were these 500? ALl at once? One at a time?.....

Further, there is all kinds of evidence against your hypothesis that Paul was trying to impress his audience.

This won't hold water, Sotzko. The only reason you mention 500 witnesses, true or not, is that you are trying to impress your audience. Otherwise, why bother to mention them?

..that he came to preach (and not himself). These kinds of passages can be multiplied and they are evidence against a Paul who is trying to impress.

But missionaries do this all the time! There are numerous modern cases of missionaries who sold their beliefs, developed worshippers, and disavowed the worshippers.

Of course Paul is trying to impress. Just go out an listen to any modern missionary recount the greatness of Jesus, Daniel, Job, David...whoever.

Michael