Question 3

[non-religious]

I have mentioned this somewhere else before, but if you believe in a literal place called hell then surely you would be so preoccupied with engaging people to let them know what awaits them. You wouldn't/shouldn't be able to walk down a street without openly declaring to all who can hear what ill fate awaits them.

If you're walking down Oxford Street and there was a huge crater at one end of the street, and everyone walking down Oxford Street was blind. You would do everything you could to prevent them from heading towards that crater. As long as blind people are walking down Oxford Street you would feel so compelled to warn them of not only what awaits them, but how to avoid it. You would be screaming from the rooftops. How much more so should you then be telling people about this awful place you believe exists? A place that they will live in for an eternity?

If you actually believe hell exists, and literally billions are going there, how do sleep at night, socialise and just get on with the mundane everyday things that life brings, whilst having this profound truth that your neighbors, friends, work colleagues and even family are destined for such a place?

Does it not illustrate a lack of humanity and compassion if as a believer you can so casually just let people blissfully go along with their lives unaware of the consequences of a lack of belief in God? How many Christians who believe in a literal hell actually feel a sincere sense of sadness and compassion for the lost in and around their midst? And how many actually act upon that sadness by sharing their belief to all who they come across?

 

[tonybeer]

You've missed the point.
If you don't go in the house you don't get killed. If no one goes in the house then no one gets killed.
Then there is no killer, right?

I think Gadarene has said just what I wanted to really.

I'm really not quite sure how you managed to misunderstood both analogies.

The killer will kill anyone who goes into the building, God punishes for eternity anyone who doesn't believe.

The killer (in my hypothetical analogy) and God have both stated these as rules. The question is is it moral to state this as a rule and carry out the horrible actions based solely on someones beliefs.

I say No, I'm assuming you say Yes.


I'm not blaming a God for starvation! I am blaming him for sending people to hell though.


If I die a non believer having not had sufficient evidence to believe in the story of Jesus do you still want God to send me to hell?

Or to put it another way. You die before me and are in heaven. I die a non believer. God says to you "Ian, should Tony go to hell?"

Would you say Yes or No?

 

[Robban]

Much of this discussion could be seen as if it is about some old guy with a beard, somewhere in the sky, pulling levers and pushing buttons.
But the one God and Creator has no shape or form He is incorporeal and has no likeness at all.
That we say, Him, His, hands and eyes and so on,How else are we to relate.
But one thing that is missing in this discussion is, Judgement.

 

[Danny777]

If I die a non believer having not had sufficient evidence to believe in the story of Jesus do you still want God to send me to hell?

We are going round in circles with this. If there was no evidence NO-ONE would accept Christ.

Out of interest, what would you consider sufficient evidence?

 

[non-religious]

[Danny777] If there was no evidence NO-ONE would accept Christ.

Islam as a religion is growing exponentially faster than any other world religion. If there are a more than a billion converts does that equate to the claims of the prophet being true?

Scientology has the most absurd claims, yet many people passionately believe it to be true. Just because a specific faith has a substantial number of adherents doesn't mean the evidence for said faith is true, existent or reliable. You do realise that right?

 

[Gadarene]

Islam as a religion is growing exponentially faster than any other world religion. If there are a more than a billion converts does that equate to the claims of the prophet being true?

Scientology has the most absurd claims, yet many people passionately believe it to be true. Just because a specific faith has a substantial number of adherents doesn't mean the evidence for said faith is true, existent or reliable. You do realise that right?

It's been pointed out already. Several times.

If Danny is serious about not wanting to see us in hell, the first thing he could do is try harder.

 

[Danny777]

Islam as a religion is growing exponentially faster than any other world religion. If there are a more than a billion converts does that equate to the claims of the prophet being true?

Scientology has the most absurd claims, yet many people passionately believe it to be true. Just because a specific faith has a substantial number of adherents doesn't mean the evidence for said faith is true, existent or reliable. You do realise that right?

Yes, I realize that...

Faith in Jesus is based on the accounts of the gospels. They describe Jesus living a blameless life, performing an array of miracles and then being the only person in history to rise from the dead, never to die again. The witnesses of these events, on the most part, then went on to be brutally executed on account of their testimonies, which in my mind makes it very unlikely they made to story up. I believe these gospel accounts are true and if that is the case I would be a fool to ignore what Jesus said re heaven/hell. I believe Jesus authenticated His message beyond any reasonable doubt...

No other religious figure makes the claims of Jesus or lived a life that can be vaguely compared to Jesus.

You are all very quick to describe what you consider insufficient evidence. What WOULD you consider sufficient evidence that the claims of Jesus are true? How could Jesus have further authenticated His claims? Its very hard to get a straight answer to this...

 

[Gadarene]

Faith in Jesus is based on the accounts of the gospels. They describe Jesus living a blameless life, performing an array of miracles and then being the only person in history to rise from the dead, never to die again. The witnesses of these events, on the most part, then went on to be brutally executed on account of their testimonies, which in my mind makes it very unlikely they made to story up. I believe these gospel accounts are true and if that is the case I would be a fool to ignore what Jesus said re heaven/hell. I believe Jesus authenticated His message beyond any reasonable doubt...

No other religious figure makes the claims of Jesus or lived a life that can be vaguely compared to Jesus.

Which doesn't make it right. Uniqueness =/= validity.

Oh, and the disciples are far from the only religious figures to have died for what they believed was true, so this also does not demonstrate validity. It only demonstrates that their beliefs were sincere.

You are all very quick to describe what you consider insufficient evidence. What WOULD you consider sufficient evidence that the claims of Jesus are true? How could Jesus have further authenticated His claims? Its very hard to get a straight answer to this...

You've been given straight answers already. Plenty of verifiable miracles performed by Christians and only by Christians would be a start. That would be little different to what people in the time of Christ would be exposed to (and again, is something else that us today are just sort of expected to do without).

Or, if it turns out such claims are not particularly verifiable, then God should not light people on fire for making an honest but mistaken conclusion about his salvation claims. (Heck, he shouldn't be doing that even if they ARE verifiable)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You are all very quick to describe what you consider insufficient evidence. What WOULD you consider sufficient evidence that the claims of Jesus are true? How could Jesus have further authenticated His claims? Its very hard to get a straight answer to this...

Sufficient evidence would be something that causes me to change my mind.

Just as a starter, Jesus apparently came to save the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24) Why, then, did he minister to the Jews (who were not lost), in Israel (a backwater part of the Roman empire with virtually no records for that time, and non of which mentions him) when he really should have been ministering to the gentiles all over the rest of the world? Evidence of him trying to save the lost sheep would be far more convincing than second hand stories of him ministering to the non-lost.

 

[non-religious]

[Danny777]

Faith in Jesus is based on the accounts of the gospels. They describe Jesus living a blameless life, performing an array of miracles and then being the only person in history to rise from the dead, never to die again. The witnesses of these events, on the most part, then went on to be brutally executed on account of their testimonies, which in my mind makes it very unlikely they made to story up. I believe these gospel accounts are true and if that is the case I would be a fool to ignore what Jesus said re heaven/hell. I believe Jesus authenticated His message beyond any reasonable doubt...

No other religious figure makes the claims of Jesus or lived a life that can be vaguely compared to Jesus.

No-one is disputing that you're a sincere believer. It is obvious that for you personally, unverified claims are sufficient enough evidence for you to conclude that the Gospel accounts are true. Even though there isn't a shred of evidence supporting any of the miraculous claims made in the Bible.

I speak as a former believer. I witnessed many weird and wonderful things, but surely you must appreciate why so many do struggle to have a faith in something that is not proven or based in fact? As a Christian it makes absolute sense to believe in the resurrection, the virgin birth etc... but the same applies to all faiths. They obviously see their path as the truth and they believe whatever their holy book states.

 

[lismore]

Would you feel any guilt that you are sat in heaven having a lovely time, whilst others are being tormented?

Here is an interesting parallel:

Ezekiel 33:6
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.’

The watchman's task is to blow the trumpet in warning. If anyone doesn't pay attention to the trumpet then it's his responsibility, not the watchman's.

 

[King Mob]

Here is an interesting parallel:

Ezekiel 33:6

The watchman's task is to blow the trumpet in warning. If anyone doesn't pay attention to the trumpet then it's his responsibility, not the watchman's.

The Watchmen's task is to discover who killed the Comedian.

 

[Danny777]

No-one is disputing that you're a sincere believer. It is obvious that for you personally, unverified claims are sufficient enough evidence for you to conclude that the Gospel accounts are true. Even though there isn't a shred of evidence supporting any of the miraculous claims made in the Bible.

I speak as a former believer. I witnessed many weird and wonderful things, but surely you must appreciate why so many do struggle to have a faith in something that is not proven or based in fact? As a Christian it makes absolute sense to believe in the resurrection, the virgin birth etc... but the same applies to all faiths. They obviously see their path as the truth and they believe whatever their holy book states.

Yes, I really do understand this.

The problem is defining what constitutes verifiable proof for a miracle?

From previous discussion with any atheists, it appears a miracle can only be verified if it can be scientifically explained...if it could be scientifically claimed it would NOT be a miracle?!!!

If I understand correctly, atheists would only believe in miracles if they could be studied in an observable, predictable environment - surely you have to admit that this betrays the nature of miracles in the first place and is basically an admission that the skeptic will NEVER believe in miracles?! Miracles by their very definition CANNOT be scientifically proven!!

You say there is not a shred of evidence for the miracles of Jesus. Lets take His resurrection:

We have eye-witness accounts, many of these eye-witnesses testified to the accuracy of these accounts on pain of death, Jesus body has NEVER been found - (surely the best way to prove it was all a big misunderstanding is to produce the body?!). If the disciples lied about Jesus resurrection, it would have been a rather stupid lie - the Romans AND Jews would ONLY have to produce the body to disprove the whole thing! The disciples witnessed the crucifixion of Christ. They were devastated and defeated (and expecting to soon die themselves as His followers). Something happened that caused them to write accounts, abandon their former lives to travel the world spreading Jesus message and ultimately face torture and death (alone and in different parts of the world) for proclaiming the resurrection of Christ. All of this for a lie that could be proved to be a fabrication the moment Jesus body could be produced (and still has never been found)...??

Sometimes common sense and our own sense of judgment has to prevail when BY DEFINITION the nature of this miracle is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove in the eyes of modern science...

I do recognize that this in your eyes is NOT proof, but tell me what WOULD constitute verifiable evidence for His resurrection. You will probably respond by saying you do not trust the gospels accounts. Fair enough, but what type of documentation WOULD you trust? How could I PROVE that something is MISSING?? (ie Jesus body). It's a bit like me asking you to PROVE there is no God...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, I really do understand this.

The problem is defining what constitutes verifiable proof for a miracle?

From previous discussion with any atheists, it appears a miracle can only be verified if it can be scientifically explained...if it could be scientifically claimed it would NOT be a miracle?!!!

What? I think you may have misunderstood or been fed a line. By definition a miracle cannot be explained by science, so anyone who says otherwise is a bit of a pillock, really.

If I understand correctly, atheists would only believe in miracles if they could be studied in an observable, predictable environment - surely you have to admit that this betrays the nature of miracles in the first place and is basically an admission that the skeptic will NEVER believe in miracles?! Miracles by their very definition CANNOT be scientifically proven!!

Nothing can be scientifically proven. It is down to the observer to decide if a miracle is such or not. The real problem with miracles is that they should break the rules of science - and if you do that then the rule is incorrect. Can you see where that would lead?

You say there is not a shred of evidence for the miracles of Jesus. Lets take His resurrection:

We have eye-witness accounts,

No we don't

many of these eye-witnesses testified to the accuracy of these accounts on pain of death,

What? People were being threatened to testify?

Jesus body has NEVER been found - (surely the best way to prove it was all a big misunderstanding is to produce the body?!). If the disciples lied about Jesus resurrection, it would have been a rather stupid lie - the Romans AND Jews would ONLY have to produce the body to disprove the whole thing! The disciples witnessed the crucifixion of Christ. They were devastated and defeated (and expecting to soon die themselves as His followers). Something happened that caused them to write accounts,

The accounts were written a long time after the events were claimed to have happened by people who didn't see them and didn't actually talk to supposed witnesses. You ever played chinese whispers?

abandon their former lives to travel the world spreading Jesus message and ultimately face torture and death (alone and in different parts of the world) for proclaiming the resurrection of Christ. All of this for a lie that could be proved to be a fabrication the moment Jesus body could be produced (and still has never been found)...??

People die for their sincerely held beliefs rather too often. That does not make them true.

Sometimes common sense and our own sense of judgment has to prevail when BY DEFINITION the nature of this miracle is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove in the eyes of modern science...

Right. So common sense demands that we believe incredible claims made by people who weren't there?

I do recognize that this in your eyes is NOT proof, but tell me what WOULD constitute verifiable evidence for His resurrection. You will probably respond by saying you do not trust the gospels accounts. Fair enough, but what type of documentation WOULD you trust? How could I PROVE that something is MISSING?? (ie Jesus body). It's a bit like me asking you to PROVE there is no God...

Not really. You cannot prove a negative And there are several possible explanations for the body not being available.

 

[tonybeer]

As far as I understand it some/all the Gospels were written well after Jesus' death. 50 years plus, and were possibly not single authors like they claim.

Historical evidence is not my forte. I'd say you can never be 100% clear what actually happened. The best you can really do is say "this group of people believed this" or "this group said they saw this".

Even if I remember back to GCSE History, you were presented with an event and two different people describing the event. Both would describe it completely differently through their own perspective.

I imagine Jesus probably existed and was a preacher. The supernatural stuff has been attributed to him through folklore and by early Christians to legitimise Jesus. It only takes one person to say he did something supernatural and this will spread. I've said something at work before and it will come back many days later in a completely different form.

Lets think of the St George and the Dragon story. St George almost certainly existed but was there a dragon there? We find no evidence of any creatures matching that description so it is likely made up.

The very fact we are having this discussion about whether the evidence is good enough, should show that God is immoral in condemning those that do not believe.

The evidence is not good enough for a rational skeptical person to believe it (even if it did happen). Your God if he exists must know this.

You do not need to read the bible to believe in Jesus. You do not need to even think about it. There are plenty of examples of people like this who are told Jesus existed and was the son of God and will just believe it.

These people will just believe what they are told and get to heaven by pure luck. They will go ahead of the people who actually put some thought into whether to believe it or not.

 

[Gadarene]

Yes, I really do understand this.

The problem is defining what constitutes verifiable proof for a miracle?

From previous discussion with any atheists, it appears a miracle can only be verified if it can be scientifically explained...if it could be scientifically claimed it would NOT be a miracle?!!!

If I understand correctly, atheists would only believe in miracles if they could be studied in an observable, predictable environment - surely you have to admit that this betrays the nature of miracles in the first place and is basically an admission that the skeptic will NEVER believe in miracles?! Miracles by their very definition CANNOT be scientifically proven!!

Not necessarily. If Christ is the true god and all others false, then one would expect to at least see an exclusive correlation of unusual healings with prayer to Christ and not to other deities. It would not be conclusive proof at all, but it would be a necessary component of it. However, even this is not observed.

You say there is not a shred of evidence for the miracles of Jesus. Lets take His resurrection:

We have eye-witness accounts

Incorrect - we have accounts of other people's accounts that are claimed to be eyewitness accounts.

many of these eye-witnesses testified to the accuracy of these accounts on pain of death

The accounts of their martyrdoms are about as shaky if not more so than the accounts of the resurrection itself, but even granting this -

Inconclusive - plenty of other people have died for their beliefs that you would consider false. It only proves sincerity of the person dying, not validity of their beliefs.

Jesus body has NEVER been found - (surely the best way to prove it was all a big misunderstanding is to produce the body?!). If the disciples lied about Jesus resurrection, it would have been a rather stupid lie - the Romans AND Jews would ONLY have to produce the body to disprove the whole thing!

The disciples didn't start actively preaching publicly, by their own accounts, until about forty days after the death of Christ. At the point, the body would scarcely be recognisable. Disproving these rumours would have been much harder to do in the past once they had begun.

The disciples witnessed the crucifixion of Christ. They were devastated and defeated (and expecting to soon die themselves as His followers). Something happened that caused them to write accounts, abandon their former lives to travel the world spreading Jesus message and ultimately face torture and death (alone and in different parts of the world) for proclaiming the resurrection of Christ. All of this for a lie that could be proved to be a fabrication the moment Jesus body could be produced (and still has never been found)...??

Again, you present nothing conclusive for your particular opinion. People have undergone profound transformations under all religions - what makes this one any different?

Sometimes common sense and our own sense of judgment has to prevail when BY DEFINITION the nature of this miracle is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove in the eyes of modern science...

Appeals to common sense are frequently fallacious.

I do recognize that this in your eyes is NOT proof, but tell me what WOULD constitute verifiable evidence for His resurrection. You will probably respond by saying you do not trust the gospels accounts. Fair enough, but what type of documentation WOULD you trust? How could I PROVE that something is MISSING?? (ie Jesus body). It's a bit like me asking you to PROVE there is no God...

I am not certain what would prove it to me, but I can think of several ways the evidence could be improved upon, and there is no reason why these things should be lacking (and yet they are). For example, there is no reason why - if this indeed happened - that actual, contemporary eyewitness accounts could have been created. As opposed to the best we do have - second and third hand accounts written down decades after the events they describe.

I also question the necessity of Christ ascending. It does not serve any purpose, and the actions of Christians carrying on the torch have been far less impressive than anything he is claimed to have done, despite his claim that they would surpass him in feats.

 

[tonybeer]

Yes, I really do understand this.

The problem is defining what constitutes verifiable proof for a miracle?

From previous discussion with any atheists, it appears a miracle can only be verified if it can be scientifically explained...if it could be scientifically claimed it would NOT be a miracle?!!!

No no no no no! I don't want to bring up that old thread but that was not what anyone was saying.


To claim something as a miracle in your case you are claiming it was caused be God. You must prove the causation in this statement.


That it doesn't fit into any known scientific law is not good enough as there is plenty we don't know. (In that case we also had plenty of examples of feet getting better without prayer, so there was a non God explanation too)


You don't have to explain something to prove it has an effect. Most new drugs are found by giving say a tree bark found in the jungle to people and then observing an effect. You don't need to yet know why it is having this effect.

But by testing it in a rigourous manner and many many times you know that it IS the drug having the effect, and not something else. You are therefore trying to establish evidence of causation.

 

[ianb321red]

You say there is not a shred of evidence for the miracles of Jesus. Lets take His resurrection:

We have eye-witness accounts

No we don't
.

It seems that we do, although to be fair the account(s) plural may have been written by the same author (Paul).

Gary Habermas (see Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ) outlines why we have good reason now to believe that the Pauline accounts can actually be traced back to a time before Christ died; hence making them eyewitness accounts:

In March 2008, Professor Gary Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor and Chair of the Philosophy and Theology Department at Liberty University, Virginia, USA toured Britain to speak about his specialist subject, the historical evidence for the resurrection.1 Dr Peter May accompanied the tour and reviews here the main lines of his argument.

Nearly 40 years ago, C.H. Dodd put forward the idea that St Paul’s credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15 could be confidently traced back to Jerusalem in around AD 35.2 This idea has captured the mind of New Testament scholarship to such an extent that few scholars today doubt it. It was an idea of immense significance. Dodd wrote, “We have here a solid body of evidence from a date close to the events,” and according to Gary Habermas, it has changed the thinking of an entire generation of scholars.3 The argument hangs on two reliable texts.

The Creed

The overwhelming consensus of scholarship today accepts that the apostle Paul wrote the New Testament letters 1 Corinthians and Galatians, and that we have a very reliable account of what he actually wrote. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul starts the chapter by saying that he wants to remind them and make clear for them the gospel he had preached to them and on which they had taken their stand. He then states that he had delivered to them what he had also received (verse 3). These verbs are the equivalent Greek words for the technical rabbinic terms, which were used to describe the handing on of a formal, word of mouth, memorised, formulaic teaching. This is what he had delivered to them and he said it was a matter “of first importance”. He then recites the credal statement, which is usually said to consist of two parallel sentences structured rhythmically as an aide memoire. It reads:

Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and was buried
He was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and appeared
To Peter / and to the twelve.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

Dating the Creed

Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33).4 Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.

Following this credal formula, Paul also lists other resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:6-8):

Then he appeared to more than 500 hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

It is uncertain whether some of this was part of the original credal formula, a different formula or added commentary from Paul. For instance, his statements “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep”, and his final sentence about himself appear to be Paul’s additional comments.

Peter, Paul and James

Interestingly, besides himself, Paul only names two other individuals in this list, the apostle Peter and James. James, who was the Lord’s brother, became the head of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18).5 He is not to be confused with James, the brother of John, who had already been put to death by Herod, in about AD 44 (Acts 12:2).

The appearances to these three individuals were particularly poignant. Prior to the crucifixion, Peter had denied that he even knew Christ (Mark 14:66-72). James had not believed in his own brother (Mark 3:21; 6:3-4; John 7:5). Paul had been a leading activist in the persecution of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Corinthians 15:9). Their experiences of the risen Christ not only radically changed the direction of their lives but ultimately led to their martyrdom.6

According to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, it was these three key figures who met together in Jerusalem, three years after Paul’s Damascus road experience (Galatians 1:18-19). Paul states that he went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter), but the verb he used was “historeo”, which means not just to visit but to investigate or research matters.7 Furthermore he stayed with him for 15 days (Galatians 1:18). He says that he saw none of the other apostles at that time, except James the Lord’s brother (verse 19). So when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 that the risen Christ appeared individually to both Peter and James, he was effectively saying “I know this because I have heard their story first hand”.

The context of his report in Galatians concerns the content of the Gospel. The Galatians had been embracing “a different gospel” because some had been “distorting the gospel” (Galatians 1:6-7). So Paul didn’t visit Jerusalem to discuss trivialities. In clarifying the gospel which they were preaching, it is overwhelmingly probable that Paul received this authoritative oral creed with its list of witnesses from Peter and James, if he had not already learned it from Christians in Damascus.

We do not know when Paul was converted, but it was clearly early in the life of the infant church. Some scholars think it was within a year of the crucifixion. Most think it was around two years after Christ’s death. This would mean that this ‘summit conference’ between Peter, James and Paul occurred three years later, i.e. by AD 35. However, the phrase “after three years” (Galatians 1:18), could equally well mean “in the third year”, which could mean they met only 18 months after his conversion. (A similar phrasing is used of Christ being raised “after three days” (Matthew 27:63, Mark 8:31) or “on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:4) when in fact he was crucified late on Friday and the empty tomb was discovered early on Sunday, that is just 36 hours later.) So the credal statement would have been received by Paul within five years of Christ’s death and possibly within only two or three years.

All of one mind

A major implication of all this is that these three key leaders were all in agreement about the central content of the gospel at this very early stage.

Paul however goes on to say that he revisited Jerusalem “after fourteen years” (Galatians 2:1). (It is usually assumed this is counted from the date of his Damascus road conversion but he may have meant after the initial meeting in Jerusalem.) He returned explicitly to “set before them the gospel I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running in vain” (Galatians 2:2). He took with him Barnabas and Titus and they met Peter and James, but now also the apostle John (Galatians 2:9). This was an extraordinary group of the most prominent members of the apostolic team – Peter, James, John, Paul plus Barnabas and Titus. Paul says of these men, concerning the gospel he preached, that they “added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6) and went on to say in verse 9 that, “James, Peter and John, who seemed to be pillars … gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (i.e. the Jews).

It is these statements that lie behind Paul’s emphatic claim in 1 Corinthians 15, which follows the credal statement with its list of witnesses, including “all the apostles” (verse 7). Paul wrote, “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Corinthians 15:11). They were all ‘on the same page’.

Statements under Oath

So how do we know these things are true? Well, we have the apostle Paul’s clear statements that this is what happened. But such is the importance of these things, that he puts himself on oath for what he reported about that first crucial meeting. “I assure you before God that what I am writing is no lie” (Galatians 1:20).

Furthermore he makes a rather similar statement after the list of resurrection witnesses: “If Christ has not been raised, we are even found to be false witnesses concerning God, because we gave testimony against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise” (1 Corinthians 15:15).

Before AD 35

If this fixed oral formula was passed on to Paul by AD 35, it must have already been in existence. Prior to that, the apostles must have believed these things to be true. Prior to their beliefs, were the experiences that led them to believe that Christ had risen. Behind them lay the historic facts of Christ’s death and empty tomb.

Consequently, a number of critical scholars are concluding that the belief in Jesus as crucified Messiah and risen Lord was central to the united apostolic proclamation of the apostles before Paul’s conversion, and at no stage was Jesus proclaimed in lesser terms.

On this basis, the idea that Paul invented Christianity crashes. So does the idea that ‘resurrection’ was a late addition to Christian thinking. Furthermore, the view that Christ was only gradually recognised as being divine also falls.

But was the tomb empty?

It has been supposed that Paul’s Damascus road experience was essentially different from the experience of the other apostles. His experience has been held to be mystical and subjective, while theirs was physical and objective. Furthermore, it is argued, Paul says nothing about the tomb being empty.

Paul, however, does not differentiate his experience from the rest of the apostles, other than in its timing. He was not with them at the beginning. He says “he appeared to Peter … he appeared to James … and last of all he appeared also to me”. Previously he had asked. “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1). He says nothing to imply that his experience was essentially different from theirs.

While he does not refer to the tomb being empty, it is implicit in the creed. Firstly, the creed describes the progression “died … buried … raised … appeared”. Whilst modern people might be tempted to separate these meanings, a first century Jew would only have believed that the sentence implied a continuity. What was dead was buried, what was dead and buried was raised, and what was dead, buried and raised also appeared. The clear implication of this creed is that Jesus underwent a bodily resurrection.

Secondly, the creed is emphatic that something happened “on the third day”. That event, we are told, is that Jesus “was raised”. The appearances, which followed, continued over several weeks.

Thirdly, we need to imagine how Paul and Peter spent their time when they spent 15 days together in Jerusalem. We have already noted that Paul went there “to investigate”. Did they not retrace Christ’s final journey? Did they not pause for prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane or stand where the cross had stood? Did Peter not show him the tomb where he and John had discovered the grave clothes? This, of course, is speculation. But Paul wanted to clarify the facts – and 15 days in a small city is a long time.8 There are therefore very good reasons to believe that Paul was fully aware that the tomb was empty.

Should we believe their witness?

It is often claimed that because these things happened so long ago, they are intrinsically unreliable due to the passing of so many years. However, once the eyewitnesses have died, their written testimony does not become less credible with the passing of time. The important questions are whether the testimony is early, whether it is from eyewitnesses, whether the individuals are being honest and whether the text is reliable.

Compare for instance comparable works from antiquity. The great Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals of Imperial Rome, recorded events from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to the death of Nero in AD 68. Yet Tacitus was not born until AD 55 and did not write the Annals until around AD 110. In other words, he wrote up to 100 years after events he described. Furthermore, there are only two ancient manuscripts which have survived. The older manuscript was written about AD 800!

Livy wrote 142 books on Roman history during the reign of Augustus; 35 of these books have survived. His writings covered a period from the foundation of Rome in 753 BC to his own lifetime. The oldest surviving manuscript dates from the 4th century AD.

In contrast, there are over 5000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, and many more in other languages – a vast, dispersed library from which to establish the original text. The oldest manuscript of Paul’s letters, known as Papyrus 46 is held in the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin. The handwriting is the main clue to its date. It is believed to have been written in Egypt around AD 200, only 150 years after the original.

For the central truths of the gospel, then, we have very early eyewitness testimony, the text of which is thoroughly documented, coming from a man of impressive moral character, who put himself under oath for his statements. It is difficult to imagine anything better

 

[Robban]

It seems that we do, although to be fair the account(s) plural may have been written by the same author (Paul).

Gary Habermas (see Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ) outlines why we have good reason now to believe that the Pauline accounts can actually be traced back to a time before Christ died; hence making them eyewitness accounts:

In March 2008, Professor Gary Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor and Chair of the Philosophy and Theology Department at Liberty University, Virginia, USA toured Britain to speak about his specialist subject, the historical evidence for the resurrection.1 Dr Peter May accompanied the tour and reviews here the main lines of his argument.

Nearly 40 years ago, C.H. Dodd put forward the idea that St Paul’s credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15 could be confidently traced back to Jerusalem in around AD 35.2 This idea has captured the mind of New Testament scholarship to such an extent that few scholars today doubt it. It was an idea of immense significance. Dodd wrote, “We have here a solid body of evidence from a date close to the events,” and according to Gary Habermas, it has changed the thinking of an entire generation of scholars.3 The argument hangs on two reliable texts.

The Creed

The overwhelming consensus of scholarship today accepts that the apostle Paul wrote the New Testament letters 1 Corinthians and Galatians, and that we have a very reliable account of what he actually wrote. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul starts the chapter by saying that he wants to remind them and make clear for them the gospel he had preached to them and on which they had taken their stand. He then states that he had delivered to them what he had also received (verse 3). These verbs are the equivalent Greek words for the technical rabbinic terms, which were used to describe the handing on of a formal, word of mouth, memorised, formulaic teaching. This is what he had delivered to them and he said it was a matter “of first importance”. He then recites the credal statement, which is usually said to consist of two parallel sentences structured rhythmically as an aide memoire. It reads:

Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and was buried
He was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and appeared
To Peter / and to the twelve.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

Dating the Creed

Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33).4 Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.

Following this credal formula, Paul also lists other resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:6-8):

Then he appeared to more than 500 hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

It is uncertain whether some of this was part of the original credal formula, a different formula or added commentary from Paul. For instance, his statements “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep”, and his final sentence about himself appear to be Paul’s additional comments.

Peter, Paul and James

Interestingly, besides himself, Paul only names two other individuals in this list, the apostle Peter and James. James, who was the Lord’s brother, became the head of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18).5 He is not to be confused with James, the brother of John, who had already been put to death by Herod, in about AD 44 (Acts 12:2).

The appearances to these three individuals were particularly poignant. Prior to the crucifixion, Peter had denied that he even knew Christ (Mark 14:66-72). James had not believed in his own brother (Mark 3:21; 6:3-4; John 7:5). Paul had been a leading activist in the persecution of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Corinthians 15:9). Their experiences of the risen Christ not only radically changed the direction of their lives but ultimately led to their martyrdom.6

According to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, it was these three key figures who met together in Jerusalem, three years after Paul’s Damascus road experience (Galatians 1:18-19). Paul states that he went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter), but the verb he used was “historeo”, which means not just to visit but to investigate or research matters.7 Furthermore he stayed with him for 15 days (Galatians 1:18). He says that he saw none of the other apostles at that time, except James the Lord’s brother (verse 19). So when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 that the risen Christ appeared individually to both Peter and James, he was effectively saying “I know this because I have heard their story first hand”.

The context of his report in Galatians concerns the content of the Gospel. The Galatians had been embracing “a different gospel” because some had been “distorting the gospel” (Galatians 1:6-7). So Paul didn’t visit Jerusalem to discuss trivialities. In clarifying the gospel which they were preaching, it is overwhelmingly probable that Paul received this authoritative oral creed with its list of witnesses from Peter and James, if he had not already learned it from Christians in Damascus.

We do not know when Paul was converted, but it was clearly early in the life of the infant church. Some scholars think it was within a year of the crucifixion. Most think it was around two years after Christ’s death. This would mean that this ‘summit conference’ between Peter, James and Paul occurred three years later, i.e. by AD 35. However, the phrase “after three years” (Galatians 1:18), could equally well mean “in the third year”, which could mean they met only 18 months after his conversion. (A similar phrasing is used of Christ being raised “after three days” (Matthew 27:63, Mark 8:31) or “on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:4) when in fact he was crucified late on Friday and the empty tomb was discovered early on Sunday, that is just 36 hours later.) So the credal statement would have been received by Paul within five years of Christ’s death and possibly within only two or three years.

All of one mind

A major implication of all this is that these three key leaders were all in agreement about the central content of the gospel at this very early stage.

Paul however goes on to say that he revisited Jerusalem “after fourteen years” (Galatians 2:1). (It is usually assumed this is counted from the date of his Damascus road conversion but he may have meant after the initial meeting in Jerusalem.) He returned explicitly to “set before them the gospel I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running in vain” (Galatians 2:2). He took with him Barnabas and Titus and they met Peter and James, but now also the apostle John (Galatians 2:9). This was an extraordinary group of the most prominent members of the apostolic team – Peter, James, John, Paul plus Barnabas and Titus. Paul says of these men, concerning the gospel he preached, that they “added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6) and went on to say in verse 9 that, “James, Peter and John, who seemed to be pillars … gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (i.e. the Jews).

It is these statements that lie behind Paul’s emphatic claim in 1 Corinthians 15, which follows the credal statement with its list of witnesses, including “all the apostles” (verse 7). Paul wrote, “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Corinthians 15:11). They were all ‘on the same page’.

Statements under Oath

So how do we know these things are true? Well, we have the apostle Paul’s clear statements that this is what happened. But such is the importance of these things, that he puts himself on oath for what he reported about that first crucial meeting. “I assure you before God that what I am writing is no lie” (Galatians 1:20).

Furthermore he makes a rather similar statement after the list of resurrection witnesses: “If Christ has not been raised, we are even found to be false witnesses concerning God, because we gave testimony against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise” (1 Corinthians 15:15).

Before AD 35

If this fixed oral formula was passed on to Paul by AD 35, it must have already been in existence. Prior to that, the apostles must have believed these things to be true. Prior to their beliefs, were the experiences that led them to believe that Christ had risen. Behind them lay the historic facts of Christ’s death and empty tomb.

Consequently, a number of critical scholars are concluding that the belief in Jesus as crucified Messiah and risen Lord was central to the united apostolic proclamation of the apostles before Paul’s conversion, and at no stage was Jesus proclaimed in lesser terms.

On this basis, the idea that Paul invented Christianity crashes. So does the idea that ‘resurrection’ was a late addition to Christian thinking. Furthermore, the view that Christ was only gradually recognised as being divine also falls.

But was the tomb empty?

It has been supposed that Paul’s Damascus road experience was essentially different from the experience of the other apostles. His experience has been held to be mystical and subjective, while theirs was physical and objective. Furthermore, it is argued, Paul says nothing about the tomb being empty.

Paul, however, does not differentiate his experience from the rest of the apostles, other than in its timing. He was not with them at the beginning. He says “he appeared to Peter … he appeared to James … and last of all he appeared also to me”. Previously he had asked. “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1). He says nothing to imply that his experience was essentially different from theirs.

While he does not refer to the tomb being empty, it is implicit in the creed. Firstly, the creed describes the progression “died … buried … raised … appeared”. Whilst modern people might be tempted to separate these meanings, a first century Jew would only have believed that the sentence implied a continuity. What was dead was buried, what was dead and buried was raised, and what was dead, buried and raised also appeared. The clear implication of this creed is that Jesus underwent a bodily resurrection.

Secondly, the creed is emphatic that something happened “on the third day”. That event, we are told, is that Jesus “was raised”. The appearances, which followed, continued over several weeks.

Thirdly, we need to imagine how Paul and Peter spent their time when they spent 15 days together in Jerusalem. We have already noted that Paul went there “to investigate”. Did they not retrace Christ’s final journey? Did they not pause for prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane or stand where the cross had stood? Did Peter not show him the tomb where he and John had discovered the grave clothes? This, of course, is speculation. But Paul wanted to clarify the facts – and 15 days in a small city is a long time.8 There are therefore very good reasons to believe that Paul was fully aware that the tomb was empty.

Should we believe their witness?

It is often claimed that because these things happened so long ago, they are intrinsically unreliable due to the passing of so many years. However, once the eyewitnesses have died, their written testimony does not become less credible with the passing of time. The important questions are whether the testimony is early, whether it is from eyewitnesses, whether the individuals are being honest and whether the text is reliable.

Compare for instance comparable works from antiquity. The great Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals of Imperial Rome, recorded events from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to the death of Nero in AD 68. Yet Tacitus was not born until AD 55 and did not write the Annals until around AD 110. In other words, he wrote up to 100 years after events he described. Furthermore, there are only two ancient manuscripts which have survived. The older manuscript was written about AD 800!

Livy wrote 142 books on Roman history during the reign of Augustus; 35 of these books have survived. His writings covered a period from the foundation of Rome in 753 BC to his own lifetime. The oldest surviving manuscript dates from the 4th century AD.

In contrast, there are over 5000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, and many more in other languages – a vast, dispersed library from which to establish the original text. The oldest manuscript of Paul’s letters, known as Papyrus 46 is held in the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin. The handwriting is the main clue to its date. It is believed to have been written in Egypt around AD 200, only 150 years after the original.

For the central truths of the gospel, then, we have very early eyewitness testimony, the text of which is thoroughly documented, coming from a man of impressive moral character, who put himself under oath for his statements. It is difficult to imagine anything better

"It is difficult to imagine anything better."
How about Divine inspiration?
It is much more effective than blackboard examples.
What I,m saying is, you don,t have to be a professor with a long list of diplomas and letters after your name.
Or what?

 

[Danny777]

Slightly off-topic but came across this...the student may not have been Einstein but any comments?

"An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem
Science has with GOD , the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New
Students to stand and . . .

Professor o you Believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD Good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor : Is GOD ALL - POWERFUL ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't.
How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent )

Professor : You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, Young fella.
Is GOD Good?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor : Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor : That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything.
Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor : So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer)

Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer)

Professor : Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son . . . Have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor : Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD , smelt your GOD ?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor : Yet you still believe in HIM?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor : Yes, faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student asks and professor answers
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor : Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor : Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't,

(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega
Heat, white Heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything
called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we
can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is
only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the Lecture Theatre )

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light . . but if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness,
isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, you would be able
to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Professor : So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical premise is
flawed.
Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is
life and then there is death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the
concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science
can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has
never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the
opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of
it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved
from a monkey?
Professor : If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes,
of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the
argument was going)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work
and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class was in uproar )

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's
brain?

(The class broke out into laughter)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelt it? . . .No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures,sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face
unfathomable)

Professor : I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . exactly ! The link between MAN & GOD is
FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

That student was Albert Einstein."