Sojourner553

Why not deal with the SUBSTANCE of my response, as opposed to interpreting everything as a personal offense! To remind you of the substance: Superstitious people [Paul easily being one of them] often see ordinary events and "interpret" them through a supernatural framework...

Obviously without personally knowing Paul, one should couch one's assessments of him in terms of probabilities -- least they be guilty of claiming as much "divine" knowledge as the religious fundies!

Sojourner

NOGO

This is how I deal with Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to my door.

They usually start with a statement on health issues or the state of the world.

I ask - Is this what you are here for? To discuss "whatever subject they started with"?
They answer "yes".

I ask again - The reason you have come all this way is that you are concerned about "subject"?
They say "yes".

This is the main subject and purpose of your visit?
They say "yes".
etc.

I then call them liars and tell them that the main purpose of their visit is recruiting.

I then ask them to confirm this.
Which they generally do.

I then repeat "you are liars"

You see lying for the cause is just a natural thing for them that they do not see this as a problem.

I suspect that Paul was the same way. He would be a Jew to the Jews and a Pagan to the Pagans in order to save people for Jesus.

Given this, would such people verify a statement like "500 brothers saw Jesus" before using it in their propaganda?

I dount it very much.

So in conclusion I would say that Paul was not a liar. He was a member of a cult and the statement is a lie. For Paul to be a liar one would have to nudge his mind and show him what he was really doing is lying.

Vorkosigan

Why not deal with the SUBSTANCE of my response, as opposed to interpreting everything as a personal offense!

Because (1) you phrased it "stuck on" instead of some less offensive way, as though you're enlightened and others are not {2) you made points already made (3) your "substance" is a trite general statement that ignores points already made against your position.

Obviously without personally knowing Paul, one should couch one's assessments of him in terms of probabilities -- least they be guilty of claiming as much "divine" knowledge as the religious fundies!

Thanks again for making a trite general statement and not responding to any of the points actually made by a number of posters to the thread.

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553

Because you have to answer ALL the points -- not selectively pick and choose among the ones you "like" or fits into your preconceived mold--

That was King Arthur's point and I agree with him. Your personal bashing against everyone who "disagrees" with you I see as a diversion to distract from the substance of your proposition.
So are you taking lessons from Intensity? I quit posting with him after seeing the same tactic -- emotion not logic for responses.

Vorkosigan

That was King Arthur's point and I agree with him. Your personal bashing against everyone who "disagrees" with you I see as a diversion to distract from the substance of your proposition.

I didn't start this personal bashing, you and KA Arthur did. So don't come whining to me. KA's first response was this:

• "You are so stinkin' dogmatic, Vorkosigan. You don't have to be. There is no threat here to your life. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can be critical without being dogmatic. Try, "Well, 500 is probably too many", or "well, maybe someone else appeared to them whom they thought was Jesus". Why a lie??"

And you wrote that people were "stuck on" the statement being a lie as if you held some morally superior position. Note that I have not accused you of being "dogmatic" or even being "stuck on." I took issue with the tone of your post.

Nor I was not the first poster to take you to task for being behind the curve -- that was Clutch. So why aren't you on his case?

So are you taking lessons from Intensity? I quit posting with him after seeing the same tactic -- emotion not logic for responses.

Thanks, but I am still waiting for you to address the points made early in the 80-odd posts in this thread. Here are some from various posters:

• *And in the line itself is sufficient evidence. (1) 500 is a nice round number, suspicious (2) where did this event take place? (3) how did the person know 500 were there? Did they sell tickets, or what? (4) Such lies and exaggerations are common in missionary activity of all religions, and in advertizing.
  
  All of the post-resurrection appearances are lies or one kind or another, and represent attempts by various factions of the new cult to assert their leadership against each other. See, for example, the leadership struggle after the death of the Taiping leader. Such events are common in cults, especially during leadership transitions. Instead of wasting your erudition attacking atheists, try a little comparative thinking. It can be liberating; NT studies being singularly lacking in that regard.
  
  Just last month a friend of mine whose wife is a lawyer here in Taiwan reported a case in which a wealthy man wanted to remarry a much younger Vietnamese woman. Suddenly the daughter took sick, possessed by the spirit of her mother, who warned that the marriage was a bad move. Amazingly, the mother also appeared to the Vietnamese woman -- who was obviously quick on the uptake -- commanding the opposite. Think either of the women was telling the truth? Think Paul was?
  
  *I don't know anything "for sure." However, there are only two choices available: Paul is in error, or Paul is lying (or Paul is reporting errors or lies, but that collapses into the first two for our purposes). One error is possible; multiple claims of experiences that could be errors, from several vectors, indicate lies.
  
  *One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is the possibility that the '500' statement by Paul is neither an error or lie on his part, but a later interpolation.
  
  *I would not call Paul a liar. Paul probably believed that he saw Jesus thus it is easy to believe that he believed that 500 people saw Jesus as well.
  However, the statement is a lie.
  How do I know this?
  
  Examine the testimony of two such people.
  One is recorded in Matthew 28 and the other in John 20. A simple read of these two stories will reveal that they are completely different. The only logical conclusion is that one or the other or both of these stories was fabricated. It is a lie. This raises a question - Can believers be trusted to tell it as it is when they are trying to make converts?
  
  The answer is no.
  
  Paul is a believer and he openly admits that he will do anything to make converts. He is willing to be a Jew among Jews and a Pagan among Pagans or anything in order to make converts.
  
  *Let’s see, the story could not have possibly happened to begin with and has all the common hallmarks of a lie. It is not a hard deduction to make for someone with half a brain.
  Granted, the story isn’t necessarily a lie. Someone may have, say, hallucinated the whole thing, believed it really happened and then preceded to spread the tale, which then was changed and exaggerated (which is still technically lying). Is there any compelling reason to accept an explanation like this?
  
  *Proof is impossible without access to more information than we have. But evidence, based on comparison with claims similar to Paul's in Christianity and other religions, as well internal evidence, strongly suggests that it is a knowing lie.
  
  From the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000481&p=3" target="_blank">other thread</a>:
  
  *what do you think of Price's arguments that the whole "500 brothers" were inserted by a later apologist? It would tend to rule out your idea that the appearance to the 500 was written back into Jesus' ministry.
  
  *As previously mentioned, 500 is a strangely round number.
  More importantly, it's an uncountable number in most situations. Even today, with our news resources, we have no means of verifying that a celebrity was seen by 500 people except at a specific venue which holds a known number of people. We can estimate how many saw Bruce Springsteen at a rock concert, but not how many have seen him around town.
  
  So, if the story is true, Jesus must have made a public appearance in a building at least as large as a small colosseum. This would have been a specific, noteworthy event. Alternatively, Jesus could have appeared ten times in a hall which holds fifty people. Again, I think this would have been mentioned somewhere.
  
  *The article refers to it. Apparently E.L Allen recognized the possibility, but still felt the need to explain why the tradition of the 500 was not made explicit in the mainstream of Christian tradition. The point still holds that if there were this astounding proof of Jesus' resurrection, the four Gospel writers (and others) would have referred to it explicitly.
  
  *Finally, Peter Kirby had already addressed your point:
  "What I like about my speculation is that it doesn't make the author of 1 Cor 15 into a liar and it doesn't make natural science into a liar either. No conspiracies required: according to this speculation, these few hundred brothers actually did have an experience that showed to them that Jesus was risen indeed. It is modernistic scientism (and its bastard offspring fundamentalism) that demands that this experience be physical in order to be real. So I see no theoretical reason that an atheist and a Christian could not agree that this speculation concerning the historical situation here is plausible."

There are some other reasons I think Paul is lying that I have not yet gotten to, but I think addressing the substance of two threads here should keep you occupied.

Your point about naturalistic explanations was already addressed by this writer in response to Kirby:

• Well, the "appearance" is a common theme in Paul. It seems that Paul is referring to an identical event that occurred singly to he, James and Peter, as well as to a group of witnesses. Whatever naturalistic speculation one has about it, it must be something that could reasonably happen to both individuals and groups, and to a single person separated from the Jerusalem crowd (Paul). I confess that nothing suggests itself offhand.

Thus, you are both rude and behind the curve. As Clutch noted:

• Sojourner, what have you been reading? There is virtually complete agreement on this thread, and on the 500 People thread, that the important issue is not whether it's a lie, but whether it counts as evidence. It's doesn't -- for reasons that have been laid out in both threads.

Now, can you address this mountain of arguments, rather than reiterating points already made and insulting others (and then blaming them for your insults) to boot?

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553

Verkosigan,

You are right that KA has a mean-spirited tone too.

And I agree with you that Paul was not above lying:

"I am a free man and own no master; but I have made myself every man's
servant, to win over as many as possible. To the Jews, I became like
Jew, to win Jews; as they are subject to the Law of Moses, I put self
under the law to win them, although I am not myself subject to it. To
win Gentiles, who are outside the Law, I made myself like one of them,
although I am not in truth outside God's law, being under the law of
Christ. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. Indeed, I have
become everything in turn to men of every sort, so that in one way or
another I may save some. All this I do for the sake of the Gospel, to
bear my part in proclaiming it." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23

As for me brandishing people for being "stuck on" Paul’s statement being a lie as if I held some morally superior position: The tone you thought you heard was from this. I agree with you Paul was possibly lying about the incident of the 500 people. But to adamantly insist that this was absolutely (100%) true is unwarranted by your facts.

I gave you the example of my superstitious maid who “interpreted” simple ordinary events as miraculous. Another example would be the Christian charismatics who insist they speak in tongues at every service. Outsiders know they are speaking gibberish only.

My point was and remains, that one could explain the event of the 500 through mass hysteria and superstition. One sees it still around all the time.

I did not see you addressing the “superstition” explanation adequately to eliminate it from the competing theories.
Thanks for asking for points this time:
People round with estimates all the time. It does not say “exactly” 500. I always read this verse to imply an estimate.
I think they were superstitious fools. I don’t think all superstitious fools realize they are lying. There was a large controversy many years ago where the pastor of a large Baptist Church was making a controversial decision whether to build a very expensive parking garage. (Many of the members of the church were opposed to it.) He later announced that he talked to God about it and "we" decided that the church needed a parking garage. I think a lot of people debate with themselves, convinced there is a spiritual connection to God as they think and pray. Of course, I believe they are communing only with themselves. Are they lying? Maybe, but if so-- also to themselves! Possibly you define this as still lying, I do not in my definition.

Now I agree some DO know they are lying (I think the Vietnamese woman’s mother “very probably” fits probably into this category).

Again my point was the CERTAINTY of your statement, not the likelihood or probability for or against it. The issue I had was that you seemed too eager to dismiss there was ANY other possibility.

I do think Paul was a weasel. I’m not sure he had to lie on the 500 people because superstition is SO rampant.

There are issues that I think atheists are on good grounds for debating – such as Paul’s veracity in general. I do not see the 100% proof that Paul directly lied on the 500 crowd. I think atheists should stay away from making dogmatic 100% statements when the facts are not there; instead they should show the respect of couching this in terms of probability (high, medium, low is fine.)

Absolutely
I think there is interesting proof that Paul “may have been” a epileptic.
Again, then it was not Paul who was doing the lying.
I think this is a very interesting point. I accept the view that “some” of these later apologists thought they were “in the spirit” of “correcting” the Bible to conform with God’s will. Again I blame superstition first, that allows them to “believe” they are doing good not evil.
Why not just stick to the fact the verse is not supported by evidence. Is it necessary that people (many of whom were well-meaning) “had” to be directly lying!
I think there are lots of superstitious people around. And again superstition could explain it all! So you can still saying they were possibly lying, and I would not be disagreeing.
I said it could be a natural event “interpreted” as supernatural by very superstitious people. The writer in response to Kirby is assuming the crowd to be highly rational – I am not.

I said superstition could explain it. When does superstition count for “evidence”. To me you are EXCLUDING a possibility.
Superstition, superstition, superstition! The “desire” for humans to find magic in their lives – interpreting it as being there – even when rationally none is to be found.
I listened to a university professor explain once a experiment where students were randomly rewarded or punished from a computer program – Almost all of them refused to accept the premise afterwards this was really random; they insisted there HAD TO BE A PATTERN, that they just hadn’t detected yet.

Again, all the people who are convinced they see/have a guardian angel are not liars, Verkosigan, just superstitious.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

King Arthur

Just for the record... I do have a mean-spirited tone. No offense.

Regardless of my tone, I think Vorkosigan blew Sojourner's statement way out of proportion.

Who knows but what Sojourner was actually criticizing me as being "stuck on" this 500 brothers thing as well?

Phew! Sensitive, sensitive? Maybe I'm rubbing nerves a little too raw?

Sojourner553

I think you and I were in agreement on the 500 believers. You say you like to play devil's advocate. My objective is to remind atheists to remain as open minded, as we would like our religious guests to be. And to me, the evidence was not there to state with high certainty that Paul was purposely lying. (All I had to do was prove that there was an alternative explanation that explained the facts -- without Paul necessarily lying.) Why not just stick to whether the gospel stories are real or not. Do apostles like Paul really have to be "villains"? I think not.

Verk did have a point on the personal attack you made against him. You and Verk are both quite intelligent. Why not stick with content??? Personal attacks are generally the refuge for small minds (or fundamentalists).

Sojourner

Toto

Hi Sojourner - I think you're beating a dead horse at this point. King Arthur has been exposed as a Christian pretending to be an atheist, here to stir up trouble. Vork didn't actually start off accusing Paul of lying - he said that was a typical missionary lie, but then when backed into a corner, tried to defend the idea that Paul was a liar.

If you actually want to discuss the issues behind the 500, may I invite you to this thread?

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000494" target="_blank">How are Paul's writings reconciled with Acts? </a>

Sojourner553

Excellent link, Toto. I agree with Doherty and Barker as you quote their views below:

To me though, this is very different from asserting that Paul "had to be" a liar -- my issue with Vork.