1 Corinthians 15:6 and the Definition of 'Eyewitness'

[cvanwey]

I'm not aware of any.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you. So we are again back to faith, and faith alone apparently.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not aware of anywhere in Scripture where it calls the Bible the "Word of God". Terms like "the word", "God's word", "the word of the Lord", or "Your word" etc all appear in Scripture under a variety of contexts.

Not even?

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

 

[Chinchilla]

If God's intent was to verify His validity as the Messiah, seems logical to instead present to people whom can actually do something with the observation (globally). If God realizes that humans are dumb, God would know this. But instead, God applies a method He 'knows' will be slower, mucked up, convoluted, and filled with skepticism and doubt forever. This appears illogical. Knowledge of a claim can still be known, and people can still choose whether to follow such an individual or not. (i.e.) Satan and all the fallen angels... Seems more logical for a resurrection claim to be 'global common knowledge'. Plenty would/could still decide not to follow such a God, based upon their own personal moral values and ethics.

Why would you give a gospel to somebody who would still not believe , you would incrase that person punishment .

 

[cvanwey]

Why would you give a gospel to somebody who would still not believe , you would incrase that person punishment .

Sal/Paul was a non-believer, until he received a revelation. Meaning, he received direct contact. This is all that it would take for some. The method used seems or appears as inefficient as possible to accomplish a task or goal.

 

[Chinchilla]

Sal/Paul was a non-believer, until he received a revelation. Meaning, he received direct contact. This is all that it would take for some. The method used seems or appears as inefficient as possible to accomplish a task or goal.

It is efficient we have his readings from 2000 years to this day .
And exactly because he was non believer and his life transformed literally instantly it gives proof of divine revelation .

 

[cvanwey]

It is efficient we have his readings from 2000 years to this day .
And exactly because he was non believer and his life transformed literally instantly it gives proof of divine revelation .

Many find it extremely inefficient, and arguably rightfully so, in the sense that one person alone created/generated the result of almost half of the NT alone.

My point is that if validation was provided by many individuals, in differing geographical areas, reporting the exact same types of revelations as Sal, would the canon then carry more weight. But as it stands, one has half written from Paul alone. 4 gospels written by basically anonymous authors, and other documentation also arguably by anonymous authorship (as no originals have been preserved). I do not use the 'anonymous' part to state this is what makes it invalid. Heck, I know many works from ancient antiquity could be argued to be authored anonymously, in which is 'verified' 'true'. By default. I instead infer that one does not know the origin of the claim, of whether the 'inspiration' was given in bias to the presupposition of the belief or not?.?.?.?

Now if divine revelation was granted to a Chinese person, and also to a Japanese person, and also a Nigerian person, whom all were devout in their prior presupposition, and then later chartered for the cause of Jesus, all reporting similar divine visionary attributes (at the time Jesus was providing 'eyewitness' accountability), then again, a real eye brow could then be raised. Not necessarily immediately validated, but would carry much more weight...

In regards to the canon of Christianity, all appears written from a bias perspective, (aside from Sal).

And to directly address your observation, if conversion to another religion, simply by revelation was any merit to absolute truth, then maybe you want to visit practically every street corner of a large metropolis

Thanks

 

[Chinchilla]

Now if divine revelation was granted to a Chinese person, and also to a Japanese person, and also a Nigerian person, whom all were devout in their prior presupposition, and then later chartered for the cause of Jesus, all reporting similar divine visionary attributes (at the time Jesus was providing 'eyewitness' accountability), then again, a real eye brow could then be raised. Not necessarily immediately validated, but would carry much more weight...

Thats your opinion tho . You don't know if by revealing many apostles like Paul people would believe different , moreover to be apostle you had to be Jewish because they were the choosen people not some guy from China , Paul just replaced Judas to make it 12 again .

Let's assume God revealed to you the gospel , how would you preach it not knowing any Scriptures which were given to Jews ? How would you argue with people ? They would take your word as some lunatic or somebody who drank too much.

Paul went to synagogue and took people's Scriptures and showed that live , death and resurrection of Christ proved thier Scriptures .
He would take Scriptures and say look what Isaiah , Jeremiah , Psalms said ect.
You can't preach the gospel without Scriptures .

 

[cvanwey]

moreover to be apostle you had to be Jewish because they were the choosen people not some guy from China , Paul just replaced Judas to make it 12 again .

Yea, this too becomes another conundrum, quandary, or even a contradiction. God states 'humans' have dominion over all other animals. However, to state that Jews have preference over other races of humans appears to completely conflict. Truth appears absolute, and completely independent of someone's race, gender, or geographic location. My point is God might instead spread such evidence, or provide demonstration of 'eyewitness testimony' globally, so that all cultures could be exposed to see such true revelation. Not instead a local isolated area, where many were already bias to such claims, ideas, and assertions from others. ANd then also rely upon decades and centuries of oral tradition, prior to anything being written to paper, and to ultimately take centuries before other cultures would even start even hearing of such stories. Seems extremely inefficient.

If ancient folklore was told of very similar stories, in areas which were already predominantly of other primary belief structures of the time, and that there existed circulating stories of witnessing a postmortem 'Jesus character' from such regions as well, this would add to the credibility of a resurrection claim.

Let's assume God revealed to you the gospel , how would you preach it not knowing any Scriptures which were given to Jews ?

Easy, God would reveal the Word/Words to me, as others claim they received divine inspiration. It would actually make my claim more credible, as many would know I did not memorize such a book prior to attesting it's validity through 'revelation.'

How would you argue with people ? They would take your word as some lunatic or somebody who drank too much.

If I provided no information which was not already known of the day, you are right. I would be no different than any 'crazy person' on any street corner. So tell me what was revealed from the Bible, which was not already known and verified of the day, without invoking 'special pleading'?

You can't preach the gospel without Scriptures .

So in affect, it sounds as if you are saying that one must be already purvey, or aware of scripture?

What's more credible, is if many illiterate people, from many global locations (unaware of the existence to Christianity), state revelation from such a being, and write such a canon to paper. It then happens from multiple global locations, and they are all matching identically, as the messages ALL came from the same entity. This would be interesting.

As stated prior...

1) It's one thing to prove a resurrection claim legitimate. Everyone on the planet could pretty much acknowledge the 'fact' a resurrection taking place; as most also recognize the world is spherical.

2) It becomes another thing for people to choose following the requesting entity.

Seems odd that if an all loving being wants as many humans as possible to know and love Him, that it would not at least be common knowledge to at least know He exists? And as stated prior, Satan was aware of God's existence. This did not stop him from rebelling. So 'freewill' is still intact.

Again, it would be very easy for someone like God to present the fact of option 1), while still leaving it up to humans to demonstrate option 2).

 

[Chinchilla]

God states 'humans' have dominion over all other animals

Not true, after Sin man lost his dominion and Satan is prince of this world .

My point is God might instead spread such evidence, or provide demonstration of 'eyewitness testimony' globally, so that all cultures could be exposed to see such true revelation.

They are not chosen , why do you assume that they would believe again . If person did not know that he is doing bad her/his punishment is less than if you told him/her and they would still do wrong willfully .

ANd then also rely upon decades and centuries of oral tradition, prior to anything being written to paper,

Not true , we have manuscripts as early as 50-80 A.D of some books from NT , literally thousands of them .

So in affect, it sounds as if you are saying that one must be already purvey, or aware of scripture?

How can you say that atoms exist without having knowledge that they exist in first place ?

1) It's one thing to prove a resurrection claim legitimate. Everyone on the planet could pretty much acknowledge the 'fact' a resurrection taking place; as most also recognize the world is spherical.

Why do you assume the world is spherical ?

 

[cvanwey]

Not true, after Sin man lost his dominion and Satan is prince of this world .

So there exists Biblical laws and pronouncements identifying animal activist rights, which specifically protect animals from humans within the Bible in some regard?

Does the Bible state anywhere not to kill animals for food or clothing?

I would instead state, according to the Bible, that humans are given supremacy over all other animals and creatures of the earth, again, according to the Bible. Unless there exists scripture stating it's okay to kill humans, as long as you eat them or wear their skin for clothing.

Not true , we have manuscripts as early as 50-80 A.D of some books from NT , literally thousands of them .

This response is severely misleading. The earliest known gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) date to the second century, and are incomplete even at this point in history. Furthermore, the later manuscripts are scribes whom recopied the previous copies. Recopying an existing text, or literary work, does not count as a NEW document, but instead counts as the same prior document (just recopied, as humans did not have the printing press until the 15th century). How else would humans preserve any literary works? Paper is delicate. You could have 4 million manuscripts (completely irrelevant). Furthermore, the vast majority of such stated copies were not scribbed until the 8th or 9th century. Tisk tisk... This response is completely irrelevant, and is meant to mislead the uniformed.

Most were illiterate. Oral tradition was the main vessel of communication. This does not make the story false automatically however. Many stories were provided from oral tradition, which are partially, or mostly true. However, it's the other corroborating pieces of evidentiary account which either validate or dismantle the claims.

In the case for a claimed resurrection, there exists little to no evidence supporting a 'resurrection claim specifically.' You are instead required to instill faith, and faith alone. Faith is not reliable, when investigating honestly.

Why do you assume the world is spherical ?

I actually don't '100% know' the world is spherical. But because I don't 'know' the answer to a claim with 100% certainty, does not mean I can't completely rule out a prior assertion or notion.

Example:

1) 2,000 years ago, the world is flat. 2) 2,000 years ago, Jesus resurrected from the dead. Since then, we have acquired many more details and evidence to either support both such claims or to reject such claims.

1) Why do you no longer conclude the earth is flat? Did it come from one science book, written by 40 scientists, which resides over 66 chapters? Or, did you attempt to validate and reach your own conclusion, outside the one text book?

2) Now using the same comparative analysis, outside the one 66 chapter book, what evidence exists for a resurrection claim?

Thanks

 

[Chinchilla]

Does the Bible state anywhere not to kill animals for food or clothing?

For clothing it state that you can use it for food prior to flood no .

I would instead state, according to the Bible, that humans are given supremacy over all other animals and creatures of the earth, again, according to the Bible. Unless there exists scripture stating it's okay to kill humans, as long as you eat them or wear their skin for clothing.

Humans lost the dominion , Bible clearly says that it's Satan's possesion now . When Satan tempted Jesus offering him all the kingdoms of earth the temptation would not be there if Satan did not own such kingdoms and it's not only in NT but in OT in Isaiah we see Satan ruling over persia ect.

If you tell me that you would offer me 100K $ for hiring me I'd laught , but if you put a case in front of me full of money now we talking serious .

You could have 4 million manuscripts (completely irrelevant)

Because they were spread all over the world and when KJV 1611 was being prepared they gather together what they could find and different manuscripts in different languages from all around earth had only minor changes like misspelled name or copiest error , no doctrine failures in most cases .

In the case for a claimed resurrection, there exists little to no evidence supporting a 'resurrection claim specifically.' You are instead required to instill faith, and faith alone. Faith is not reliable, when investigating honestly.

Not true , there is difference between blind faith and faith .
Jesus came to fulfill the Scriptures and this is the gospel of grace 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 .

He fulfilled 350+ prophecy with his life , death and resurrection .
Because such prophecy was written spread across all OT books , by different authors which were speaking of the same thing it validates that the OT books were inspired of prophecy which were fulfilled .

If you had only one book by one man it would not stand as proof in court but if you have different witnesses from different ages all being confirmed it stands as proof .

1) Why do you no longer conclude the earth is flat?

I have to conclude earth is flat based on Genesis 1 which says that there are two great light not billion of great lights and each of them gives it's own light rather than moon reflecting sun's light . Bible states that the firmament which is put above earth validates God's hand in making such earth.

If you wanted to invoke Heliocentric model the you would first need to resolve the 97% missing of gravity to make it work .

2) Now using the same comparative analysis, outside the one 66 chapter book, what evidence exists for a resurrection claim?

That Christianity grow to such large scale when prophet Jesus Christ claimed to rise from the dead . There are 3 possible scenarios
a) He was lunatic and did not know what he was doing
b) He was lying and he did not rise from the Dead
c) He was LORD and rose from dead

If he was lunatic and lier then why did Christianity grow if people who witnessed Christ death would see his bones and him himself not rising from dead . They should feel lied to and stop believing such lies and go back to thier own religion practiced by thier ancestors and family for hunderds of years .
Moreover if Jesus did not rise from dead why did people suddenly decide to die for a lie and prefered to be fed to lions ?
Christianity should be burried dead found that Christ did not rise from the dead by both Roman's pagan religions and persecution from Judaism .

 

[cvanwey]

Because they were spread all over the world and when KJV 1611 was being prepared they gather together what they could find and different manuscripts in different languages from all around earth had only minor changes like misspelled name or copiest error , no doctrine failures in most cases .

You have completely avoided addressing the key parts from my prior response.

'The earliest known gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) date to the second century, and are incomplete even at this point in history. Furthermore, the later manuscripts are scribes whom recopied the previous copies. Recopying an existing text, or literary work, does not count as a NEW document, but instead counts as the same prior document (just recopied, as humans did not have the printing press until the 15th century). How else would humans preserve any literary works? Paper is delicate. You could have 4 million manuscripts (completely irrelevant). Furthermore, the vast majority of such stated copies were not scribed until the 8th or 9th century. Tisk tisk... This response is completely irrelevant, and is meant to mislead the uniformed.'

And yes, by the time the canon was placed to paper, oral tradition had spread far and wide, like most legions do... (i.e.) Hercules, Alexander the Great, etc...

Most manuscripts were just small scraps, prior to centuries later. The originals were not preserved. Seams odd that God would not assure the manuscript preservation, if the Word of God was so vital?.?.?.?

Not true , there is difference between blind faith and faith .

What is YOUR definition of faith?

Mine is belief in place of evidence, or, the more one needs to instill faith for the lack in evidence, or, pretending to believe something you are not sure is actually true, or, less evidence presented the more one must substitute with faith.

If you had only one book by one man it would not stand as proof in court but if you have different witnesses from different ages all being confirmed it stands as proof .

Correct, but does the Bible represent such a claim? Let's start with 1 Corinthians 15:6 or Matthew 27:52 for example....

I have to conclude earth is flat based on Genesis 1 which says that there are two great light not billion of great lights and each of them gives it's own light rather than moon reflecting sun's light . Bible states that the firmament which is put above earth validates God's hand in making such earth.

Wow! Just too many questions... I'll just pass on responding to this specific topic (to many rabbit trails).

That Christianity grow to such large scale when prophet Jesus Christ claimed to rise from the dead . There are 3 possible scenarios
a) He was lunatic and did not know what he was doing
b) He was lying and he did not rise from the Dead
c) He was LORD and rose from dead

This is a trichodomy... You are forgetting one very serious contender.... (L)egend

Oral tradition leads to growing tales and exaggerated stories over time (i.e) legend. - Maybe some true, some false, some exaggerated, some never happened.

 

[Chinchilla]

'The earliest known gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) date to the second century, and are incomplete even at this point in history. Furthermore, the later manuscripts are scribes whom recopied the previous copies.

I said we have manuscripts as early as 50 A.D .

Correct, but does the Bible represent such a claim? Let's start with 1 Corinthians 15:6 or Matthew 27:52 for example....

Exactly , if you wrote the gospels century after things happend you could not write " they are still alive " to people who had witnessed the resurrected Christ because it would be easy to disprove such argument by people being alive there . Paul's writtings are personal letters . If that was not true then these who read such letter would not bother to copy it but would just discard it .

Wow! Just too many questions... I'll just pass on responding to this specific topic (to many rabbit trails).

Why , because you can't explain your world view ? Big bang is not observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable . You have faith in it and that it happend . You first invoked Sphere but now are moving out of your argument because of lack of proof .

This is a trichodomy... You are forgetting one very serious contender.... (L)egend

That's your opinion .


Your arguments are arbitrary . To sum them up you could say that :
"I don't believe in God because his way of saving manking is different that I would do it myself so he must be less intelligent than me because I would do it better myself if I was God "

the second argument is "God is evil and there is injustice therefore God does not exist " or " There is evil and injustice therefore God does not exist "

Consider giving me an argument that is not your opinion or a truth Statement.

 

[cvanwey]

I said we have manuscripts as early as 50 A.D .

You are funny. The gospels came much later, and the originals were not preserved. The earliest known articles, were small partial scraps. The first complete manuscripts were centuries later.

Exactly , if you wrote the gospels century after things happend you could not write " they are still alive " to people who had witnessed the resurrected Christ because it would be easy to disprove such argument by people being alive there .

Sure you could, because Paul did. There are no listed names. How might anyone know who to even check with?

Paul's writtings are personal letters . If that was not true then these who read such letter would not bother to copy it but would just discard it .

Paul started Christianity, Constantine later made it the 'official religion'. This is partially why people recopied the letters

That's your opinion .

Then the other three are (your) opinion, but are incomplete. To discard Legend into the equation is either self deceptive, or dishonest to others.

It is fact, that most early history was comprised first from oral tradition. Most were illiterate in this time. Now institute a game of 'telephone' with a few thousand and tell me how that goes. It becomes the job to validate such claimed assertions and stories honestly (some true, some false, some elaborated, some plain false, etc...). Not to instead only appeal to the bias of the ones whom reinforced them through religious dogma.

***************

You have (again) completely avoided addressing the key parts from my prior response.

'The earliest known gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) date to the second century, and are incomplete even at this point in history. Furthermore, the later manuscripts are scribes whom recopied the previous copies. Recopying an existing text, or literary work, does not count as a NEW document, but instead counts as the same prior document (just recopied, as humans did not have the printing press until the 15th century). How else would humans preserve any literary works? Paper is delicate. You could have 4 million manuscripts (completely irrelevant). Furthermore, the vast majority of such stated copies were not scribed until the 8th or 9th century. Tisk tisk... This response is completely irrelevant, and is meant to mislead the uniformed.'

And yes, by the time the canon was placed to paper, oral tradition had spread far and wide, like most legends do... (i.e.) Hercules, Alexander the Great, etc...

Most manuscripts were just small scraps, prior to centuries later. The originals were not preserved. Seams odd that God would not assure the manuscript preservation, if the Word of God was so vital?.?.?.?

 

[Chinchilla]

Sure you could, because Paul did. There are no listed names. How might anyone know who to even check with?

Exactly that , if the reader did not know themselfes they would discard such letter . Anther proof that these letters could not be written centuries later thanks for proving my point .

Paul started Christianity, Constantine later made it the 'official religion'. This is partially why people recopied the letters

You are being arbitrary again

Then the other three are (your) opinion, but are incomplete.

Why are you judging that something is incomplete or complete that's being arbitrary .

Everything you just stated is based on your presuppositions and you have no evidence to prove anything of that .

 

[cvanwey]

Exactly that , if the reader did not know themselfes they would discard such letter . Anther proof that these letters could not be written centuries later thanks for proving my point .

You are changing my response. The gospels were written much later (centuries later). Paul wrote his letters while he was alive (most likely). I never denied that. My point is that he never mentioned any names.

Getting to your concern with Paul's writings now (1 Corinthians 15:6), which is part of about ~13/27 NT books....

How would we know whom actually read the letters? Most witnesses were probably illiterate anyways. I doubt any of 'them', whoever these '500' were, would have 'read' them anyways. Paul was one of the very few, with the ability to read and write. He lists no names. Some also seem to suggest that many were far away (over seas even after the writing). But again, how might one verify? - (only wide speculation). Seems odd that the names were not listed, if it was setup to represent 'evidence of eyewitness attestation.'

Why are you judging that something is incomplete or complete that's being arbitrary .

Everything you just stated is based on your presuppositions and you have no evidence to prove anything of that .

You have (again) completely avoided addressing the key parts from my prior response.

'The earliest known gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) date to the second century, and are incomplete even at this point in history. Furthermore, the later manuscripts are scribes whom recopied the previous copies. Recopying an existing text, or literary work, does not count as a NEW document, but instead counts as the same prior document (just recopied, as humans did not have the printing press until the 15th century). How else would humans preserve any literary works? Paper is delicate. You could have 4 million manuscripts (completely irrelevant). Furthermore, the vast majority of such stated copies were not scribed until the 8th or 9th century. Tisk tisk... This response is completely irrelevant, and is meant to mislead the uniformed.'

And yes, by the time the canon was placed to paper, oral tradition had spread far and wide, like most legends do... (i.e.) Hercules, Alexander the Great, etc...

Most manuscripts were just small scraps, prior to centuries later. The originals were not preserved. Seams odd that God would not assure the manuscript preservation, if the Word of God was so vital?.?.?.?

 

[Chinchilla]

You are changing my response. The gospels were written much later (centuries later)

Prove it

 

[cvanwey]

Prove it

I thought this was common knowledge by now (at least for Christian's in the know)? The earliest fragment dates back to anywhere from 100-200 AD - ish. It is called "Rylands Library Papyrus P52" If you are ever in England, feel free to stop by and check it out, in all it's glory (I found a picture of it located at the following link below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52#/media/File:Rylands_papyrus.jpg

Now if you would not mind actually addressing my main points now?

Is 1 Corinthians 15:6 a verse which is intended to demonstrate '500 eyewitnesses' of a resurrection or not? If yes, how so with no corroboration, deposition, and no names listed to reference such accounts?

And....

You have (again) completely avoided addressing the key parts from my prior response.

'The earliest known gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) date to the second century, and are incomplete even at this point in history. Furthermore, the later manuscripts are scribes whom recopied the previous copies. Recopying an existing text, or literary work, does not count as a NEW document, but instead counts as the same prior document (just recopied, as humans did not have the printing press until the 15th century). How else would humans preserve any literary works? Paper is delicate. You could have 4 million manuscripts (completely irrelevant). Furthermore, the vast majority of such stated copies were not scribed until the 8th or 9th century. Tisk tisk... This response is completely irrelevant, and is meant to mislead the uniformed.'

And yes, by the time the canon was placed to paper, oral tradition had spread far and wide, like most legends do... (i.e.) Hercules, Alexander the Great, etc...

Most manuscripts were just small scraps, prior to centuries later. The originals were not preserved. Seams odd that God would not assure the manuscript preservation, if the Word of God was so vital?.?.?.?

 

[Chinchilla]

I thought this was common knowledge by now

You are being arbitrary again .

I can use the same argument " I Thought this was common knowledge by now that Yahweh exists " .

Now if you would not mind actually addressing my main points now?

Is 1 Corinthians 15:6 a verse which is intended to demonstrate '500 eyewitnesses' of a resurrection or not? If yes, how so with no corroboration, deposition, and no names listed to reference such accounts?

Why do you presuppose that this passage is true but passage like Genesis 1:1 is not true ?
I'm not gonna argue Scriptures with unbeliever because it's pointless.
Every time something will not be according to your presupposition you will simply ignore that just like you ignored my previous arguments .

You put your presupposition what eyewitness is just like you would say that whale is mammal while on Bible terms it's fish because it's swimming in water .

If you want to continue then first tell me what is your world view , are you an Atheist with only materialistic world view , dualist or do you have some religion and it's religious world view ?

 

[cvanwey]

You are being arbitrary again .

Such responses drive my point. Believers (like you specifically), instead choose faith instead of evidence. By faith, I mean choosing to retain a prior believe, in place of provided evidence. [Staff edit]. Multiple responses, stating such information is 'arbitrary', demonstrates you are not willing to address the observation, to instead retain your core belief. And yet, when seriously challenged, choose to change the subject, tell me I'm 'arbitrary', or not respond to the specific observation at all.

Every time something will not be according to your presupposition you will simply ignore that just like you ignored my previous arguments .

Not accepting a claim, do to insufficient evidence is not a presupposition, but is instead the conclusion of a skeptic or of a person in doubt (due to the insufficiency). You, on the other hand, demonstrate full presupposition.

I have chose to ignore some of your specific responses (which veer far away off topic). I'm trying to remain somewhat on point (the resurrection claim at least).

You responding, multiple times, and yet not addressing the meat and potatoes of these postings is very telling (i.e):

-Is 1 Corinthians 15:6 meant to demonstrate eyewitness testimony of 500 or not?
-Why did God not preserve original manuscripts if such doctrine is so vital?
-Why are you not addressing that manuscripts being recopied over and over does not count as NEW copies, but instead the same copies just recopied?
-Oral tradition was the initial method of such stories, leading to legendary inflation. Meaning, it's one thing to believe someone lived, did stuff, and died; but to claim a resurrection actually requires more. So where is such 'eyewitness testimony' actually located?
-Sal writing half the NT, by actually having the ability to read and write - (but most others didn't), which is the reason he wrote it.

The list goes on....

If you want to continue then first tell me what is your world view , are you an Atheist with only materialistic world view , dualist or do you have some religion and it's religious world view ?

I was raises Christian for decades. I believed blindly, because I believed people like you, whom assert with no actual evidence to back their claims (just assertions). As soon as I researched such claims, without a presuppositional bias, I am now widely skeptical to such claimed veracity.

I used to be in the camp of, 'there exists too many eyewitnesses to reject a resurrection claim.'

Now, I realize, that such prior notions are not backed with any actual evidence. But to instead retain the belief, by way of faith. Meaning, choosing faith (instead) of evidence to support the claim. This presents intellectual dishonesty to me.

I do not classify myself as anything really, other than a skeptic to Christianity. Just like you are a severe skeptic to any opposing religion.

Thanks