Paul's Conversion

brightlights

A sinner
Jul 31, 2004
4,164
298
USA
✟28,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Since you have no original eyewitness testimony of a resurrection, all you have is hearsay. If your willing to base your entire worldview on hearsay, then you have no rational reason to reject all other claims of miraculous visions and revelation.

Matthew and John's account are original eyewitness testimonies as are the letters of Peter and John. Luke's gospel originated with Paul's preaching and I would consider him to be an eyewitness (though untimely born). Mark's gospel comes straight from the mouth of Peter and so is also substantial.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Matthew and John's account are original eyewitness testimonies . . .

As is Joseph Smith's testimony, and yet you reject it. History is littered with claims of eyewitness testimonies of one god or another, most of which I would assume you reject out of hand.

as are the letters of Peter and John. Luke's gospel originated with Paul's preaching and I would consider him to be an eyewitness (though untimely born). Mark's gospel comes straight from the mouth of Peter and so is also substantial.

The synoptic gospels copy heavily from one another, and there is no real agreement than they were directly written by eyewitnesses. On top of that, claiming to be an eyewitness does not guarantee that they were eyewitnesses. It is still physically possible for someone to write down that they were an eyewitness and yet not be.
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Matthew and John's account are original eyewitness testimonies as are the letters of Peter and John. Luke's gospel originated with Paul's preaching and I would consider him to be an eyewitness (though untimely born). Mark's gospel comes straight from the mouth of Peter and so is also substantial.

I'm not sure how you can make this claim when Matthew copied about 90% from Mark, and John's account is wholly different. Additionally, both Mt. and Jn. are pseudonymous, and written in third person, not what you would expect from and "eyewitness."
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,888
6,561
71
✟320,844.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It's not just Paul's 'vision', but the large number who actually saw the risen Christ. Paul saw Christ 'out of time' i.e. after Christ's ascension.

John
NZ

And that large number is a huge sticking point. I do not recall any independent documentation.

Instead what we have is one or 2 sources CLAIMING that hundreds or Thousands saw things. But we have no record of those same people writing their friends or family.
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Since you have no original eyewitness testimony of a resurrection, all you have is hearsay. If your willing to base your entire worldview on hearsay, then you have no rational reason to reject all other claims of miraculous visions and revelation.

The NT contains eyewitness accounts testified to Jesus' contemporaries. Thus, standard literary and historical criteria apply to any evaluation of those documents

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The NT contains eyewitness accounts testified to Jesus' contemporaries. Thus, standard literary and historical criteria apply to any evaluation of those documents

John
NZ

I'm not familiar with any contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. The earliest gospel was Mark, and was written 60-70 CE, by a pseudonymous author, in a language Jesus nor his disciples spoke, from a country Jesus had never been to. So that's about thirty years after Jesus died, by an unknown author who never met Jesus. Hardly a reliable eyewitness account.
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
I'm not familiar with any contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. The earliest gospel was Mark, and was written 60-70 CE, by a pseudonymous author, in a language Jesus nor his disciples spoke, from a country Jesus had never been to. So that's about thirty years after Jesus died, by an unknown author who never met Jesus. Hardly a reliable eyewitness account.

Mark, as did other gospel writers, used earlier materials. Your line of thinking suggests we cannot believe any recent history about an event such as the holocaust because a modern author was not an actual eyewitness. Again, in evaluating an historical record or account, we must use accepted historical criteria.

It's fascinating that secular ancient historians and ancient literature experts are rather bemused at the way scholars attempt to discredit biblical history when their own fields have rejected the methodology of such critics. Maybe some on objective factors intrude?

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,636
6,398
✟294,951.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Mark, as did other gospel writers, used earlier materials. Your line of thinking suggests we cannot believe any recent history about an event such as the holocaust because a modern author was not an actual eyewitness. Again, in evaluating an historical record or account, we must use accepted historical criteria.

It's fascinating that secular ancient historians and ancient literature experts are rather bemused at the way scholars attempt to discredit biblical history when their own fields have rejected the methodology of such critics. Maybe some on objective factors intrude?

John
NZ

With the holocaust we have thousands of eyewitness accounts painstakingly and meticulously written into the record, to compare the two events in terms of historical veracity to the attributed gospels that used unknown source material is ridiculous.

It's hard to take you seriously when you make such comparisons.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
With the holocaust we have thousands of eyewitness accounts painstakingly and meticulously written into the record, to compare the two events in terms of historical veracity to the attributed gospels that used unknown source material is ridiculous.

It's hard to take you seriously when you make such comparisons.

It's not remotely ridiculous. The same criteria apply. Numbers don't necessarily equate with veracity either.

Or we can go back further. Do you discount ancient Mesopotamian history as unreliable?

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,636
6,398
✟294,951.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It's not remotely ridiculous. The same criteria apply. Numbers don't necessarily equate with veracity either.

John
NZ

We have verified eye witness accounts of the holocaust down to name, date of birth, and family history of the people making the accounts. So, direct eye witness testimony written into the record, and our historical methods for investigating such claims are beyond reproach by known historians. With the New Testament Gospels we have an unknown author using unknown documents for support. It's basically hear say, where, anyone could make any claim they wish divorced from all consequence.

Yes, it is preposterous to make such a comparison.

Or we can go back further. Do you discount ancient Mesopotamian history as unreliable?

When it references miracles we generally do. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
We have verified eye witness accounts of the holocaust down to name, date of birth, and family history of the people making the accounts. So, direct eye witness testimony written into the record, and our historical methods for investigating such claims are beyond reproach by known historians. With the New Testament Gospels we have an unknown author using unknown documents for support. It's basically hear say, where, anyone could make any claim they wish divorced from all consequence.

Seems acceptance (perhaps even knowledge) of accepted historical data) is beyond you ken. Never mind.

When it references miracles we generally do. ;)

Only because you are thinking within a post-Enlightenment (modern) story, very much a latecomer to history, and now under significant challenges from Postmodernism because of its failure to provide an adequate account of the reality of human life, and the social sciences, which see all theories and values as culturally conditioned. Feel free to express your views as from one sect, but please don't assume their universality or unquestioned veracity.

Of course Christians have the same challenges placed onto them. But we can contend from within a very holistic story that relates to life on planet earth with significant cohesion in its worldview, extreme fundamentalism probably excepted.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Mark, as did other gospel writers, used earlier materials. Your line of thinking suggests we cannot believe any recent history about an event such as the holocaust because a modern author was not an actual eyewitness. Again, in evaluating an historical record or account, we must use accepted historical criteria.

It's fascinating that secular ancient historians and ancient literature experts are rather bemused at the way scholars attempt to discredit biblical history when their own fields have rejected the methodology of such critics. Maybe some on objective factors intrude?

John
NZ

That's exactly my point! Using accepted scholarly historical criteria, Jesus and the NT writings, including Paul's writings, coincide with every other known myth-archetypal story. All of the classical hallmarks are there: previous virgin births, beating death, divine inspiration, miraculous powers, the accounts written decades after the subject's death, stories re-told and codified as centuries pass.

Actual real historical events have contemporary sources, are usually mundane in their telling, and have objective corroboration, and often have physical evidence. Jesus and the NT have none of this. There is ZERO contemporary evidence or extrabiblical documentation that a person named Jesus as portrayed in the NT, ever even existed. Even Paul's writing all refer to Jesus death and resurrection in the spiritual world, and not on the earth. The author of Hebrews locates Jesus' sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary.
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of course Christians have the same challenges placed onto them. But we can contend from within a very holistic story that relates to life on planet earth with significant cohesion in its worldview, extreme fundamentalism probably excepted.

John
NZ

Only if you're willing to ignore 90% of reality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
That's exactly my point! Using accepted scholarly historical criteria, Jesus and the NT writings, including Paul's writings, coincide with every other known myth-archetypal story. All of the classical hallmarks are there: previous virgin births, beating death, divine inspiration, miraculous powers, the accounts written decades after the subject's death, stories re-told and codified as centuries pass.

Actual real historical events have contemporary sources, are usually mundane in their telling, and have objective corroboration, and often have physical evidence. Jesus and the NT have none of this. There is ZERO contemporary evidence or extrabiblical documentation that a person named Jesus as portrayed in the NT, ever even existed. Even Paul's writing all refer to Jesus death and resurrection in the spiritual world, and not on the earth. The author of Hebrews locates Jesus' sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary.

Except the genres of history and myth are very different. And your understanding of NT texts seems rather amiss.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Except the genres of history and myth are very different. And your understanding of NT texts seems rather amiss.

John
NZ

Correct, as I previously pointed out, historical events and myth are indeed two separate styles in their development and style. I pointed out how the NT parallels in every way how it's beginnings are mythical in nature. I made the claim that you cannot provide any contemporary extrabiblical evidence or documentation of Jesus and his supposed exploits. I made that claim that every reference Paul makes to Jesus in his epistles occurs strictly in the heavenly or spiritual dimension. Please feel free to provide sources and prove me wrong. That would be much more constructive and compelling than simply stating your opinion of my NT understanding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums