| tcampen |
| Posted 09/11/09 at 07:02 PM | Reply with quote #16 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by billcluteQuote: how is it possible not one of them thought it significant enough to write it down? Why does our first indication of it in writing come decades later?
Maybe it is because they didn't do things the way we do today. A lot of history from back in that day and before was not written down as first hand accounts but from oral tradition that was passed on from generation to generation.
But we might expect some other effects if not writings closer in time by eyewitnesses. All the dead Jewish Saints rising from their tombs and walking about Jerusalem for lots of folks to see, if it wouldn't have made enough impact for someone to write down, would have at least spawened some kind of religious movement unto itself. The impact of such an event would be huge. I agree we really don't know exactly how people generally acted back then, and know much less about how specific people acted and thought back then, leaving us to view history with a combination of what we do know and the principle of analogy to our own experiences of humanity.
Quote: In the case of the NT some was written down, apparently, by those that witnessed the events but it was a decade or more after the events.
At least several decades by even most theistic scholars, 5 or more decades for some.
Quote: The pencil and paper or papyrus wasn't a common thing like it is today. Even today, those that claim to see Elvis or UFO's don't rush to get a pen and paper and write it down or even type it in the computer. They tell someone and the word spreads around. Only if they can get a book deal out of it do they write it down.
Actually UFO people now use video and digital cameras to capture and spread their observations with greate haste! 
If it had been written down by many more people close to the events it would be much more evidence for the event but I don't think the absence of multiple sources is enough reason to dismiss the story.
Quote:
according to the Gospels, you couldn't shake a stick in 1st century Jerusalem with hitting a dead person who came back to life, so perhaps it wasn't as big of a deal back then.
???
|
| Loading... | |
| billclute |
| Posted 09/12/09 at 06:43 AM | Reply with quote #17 |
|
tcampen-
I agree with a lot of what you said.
Quote:
All the dead Jewish Saints rising from their tombs and walking about Jerusalem for lots of folks to see, if it wouldn't have made enough impact for someone to write down, would have at least spawened some kind of religious movement unto itself.
Let's not make it be more than what the lone text we have says it was. It doesn't say "all" the saints and "lots" of folks but instead, many saints and many folks. Many means more than the ordinary. One dead person rising is more than the ordinary. I don't think that is what the writer intended but I don't think it has to be a very large number. It could just be a handful.
Also, this may have been part of the "spawning" of Christianity. Obviously, the resurrection of Jesus is the most important part of Christianity and may be what most focused on.
Quote:
At least several decades by even most theistic scholars, 5 or more decades for some.
That's debatable and maybe even outdated. Many scholars believe that Mark may have been written as early as the mid-50's with Matthew, Luke, Acts and the writings of Paul all completed by 64 AD.
Quote: Actually UFO people now use video and digital cameras to capture and spread their observations with greate haste! 
And many just use printshop!! They don't have to capture the event. They create it.
|
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 10/13/09 at 06:04 PM | Reply with quote #18 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by billclutetcampen- I agree with a lot of what you said. Quote:
All the dead Jewish Saints rising from their tombs and walking about Jerusalem for lots of folks to see, if it wouldn't have made enough impact for someone to write down, would have at least spawened some kind of religious movement unto itself.
Let's not make it be more than what the lone text we have says it was. It doesn't say "all" the saints and "lots" of folks but instead, many saints and many folks. Many means more than the ordinary. One dead person rising is more than the ordinary. I don't think that is what the writer intended but I don't think it has to be a very large number. It could just be a handful.
Quote: Also, this may have been part of the "spawning" of Christianity. Obviously, the resurrection of Jesus is the most important part of Christianity and may be what most focused on.
That's true, but there would have been lots of people who saw these dead Jews resurrected who knew nothing of Jesus and Christianity. Such an unbelievably remarkable event would most like have made a recorded impact of some kind on those people. As big as Jesus' resurrection may have been, it is still just one person coming back from the dead. "Many" Jews doing the same and walking around Jerusalem for "Many" others to see certainly would have been an even more pronounced event historically. (I recognize theologically it is different.)
Quote: Quote: Actually UFO people now use video and digital cameras to capture and spread their observations with greate haste! And many just use printshop!! They don't have to capture the event. They create it.
Why so skeptical of UFO observers, but not so of accounts of Jesus written many years later by unknown authors using oral traditions as sources within a extremely unsophisticated culture scientifically? Now I join you in the skepticism of UFO accounts (as much as I'd really like them to be true), but I also apply the same standards resurrection claims made 2,000 years ago where our ability to investigate the claims is only a tiny fraction of what is available with claims made today.
|
| Loading... | |
| RandyE |
| Posted 10/14/09 at 08:40 AM | Reply with quote #19 |
|
A few notes to help.
1. Paul did in fact write specific names down, but it is unreasonable to assume he should start naming all the 500 right then and there, especially after he already named specific people. His implication is, "test me out," and there is no reason to assume people wouldn't (see Bereans) and wouldn't also be provided with names.
2. There is no reason to believe this is an interpolation. As Harvey said, it seemed foundational to what he says next.
3. We have very very few ancient sources of anything at all, and it would be unreasonable to conclude that because we don't have multiple attestation for something, that it assuredly is not correct. Remember, the 500 people were probably not all, or even mostly, educated scholars (you said yourself the culture was unsophisticated). Thus we shouldn't be surprised even if almost none of them wrote anything down! Further, if 10% of the people wrote something (a number that seems likely high considering both the literacy rate and likelihood of writing [for what purpose?]), this would be 50 ancient documents, that had no reason to be copied. Out of the thousands and thousands of ancient documents out there, why would we expect to find any of these?
|
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 10/14/09 at 05:11 PM | Reply with quote #20 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyE
A few notes to help.
1. Paul did in fact write specific names down, but it is unreasonable to assume he should start naming all the 500 right then and there, especially after he already named specific people. His implication is, "test me out," and there is no reason to assume people wouldn't (see Bereans) and wouldn't also be provided with names.
"and that he appeared to Cephas (or Peter); then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep"
Are there other passages Paul is talking about appearances to this group of 500+ people?
Quote: 2. There is no reason to believe this is an interpolation. As Harvey said, it seemed foundational to what he says next.
Yea, I don't know what's going through Paul's head. I don't know where he got the notion Jesus appeared to 500 people. It seems it could just be oral tradition as much as anything, given it's vague nature. I guess it really doesn't stand for much in my mind.
Quote: 3. We have very very few ancient sources of anything at all, and it would be unreasonable to conclude that because we don't have multiple attestation for something, that it assuredly is not correct. Remember, the 500 people were probably not all, or even mostly, educated scholars (you said yourself the culture was unsophisticated). Thus we shouldn't be surprised even if almost none of them wrote anything down! Further, if 10% of the people wrote something (a number that seems likely high considering both the literacy rate and likelihood of writing [for what purpose?]), this would be 50 ancient documents, that had no reason to be copied. Out of the thousands and thousands of ancient documents out there, why would we expect to find any of these?
I don't know if I'd except to find writings from the 500 on a mass vision (or appearance) of Jesus, necessarily. But I don't see good reason to just accept Paul's to claim Jesus appeared to 500 people. Remember, he's writing about something that supposedly happened to other people 20 years earlier to the church he started in Greece. This is not "CSI Antiquity" where claims are going to be investigated and vetted as we think of in our time. Even if someone wanted to it couldn't have been reasonably investigated at the time. (But the resurrection of many jews who walked around Jerusalem to be seen by many is a completely different story.)
The point is that Paul's claim about the 500 doesn't really do anything for the apologetics of the resurrection, except perhaps bolster the conviction of those who already accept it. I'm just not seeing the significance of it.
|
| Loading... | |
| RandyE |
| Posted 10/15/09 at 08:23 AM | Reply with quote #21 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampen
Which of the 500 are named? I know he names several disciples, but those are presented separately from the 500. Maybe I misread the account of
"and that he appeared to Cephas (or Peter); then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep"
Quote: I don't know if I'd except to find writings from the 500 on a mass vision (or appearance) of Jesus, necessarily. But I don't see good reason to just accept Paul's to claim Jesus appeared to 500 people. Remember, he's writing about something that supposedly happened to other people 20 years earlier to the church he started in Greece. This is not "CSI Antiquity" where claims are going to be investigated and vetted as we think of in our time. Even if someone wanted to it couldn't have been reasonably investigated at the time...
The point is that Paul's claim about the 500 doesn't really do anything for the apologetics of the resurrection, except perhaps bolster the conviction of those who already accept it. I'm just not seeing the significance of it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonably investigated," but it most assuredly could have been! Unless you think that he must have provided all 500 (itself an impossibility because Paul concedes some are dead); there is even no reason to believe these 500 were not in the same general area (after all, they were all in the same area at the appearance).
It's true that now you could not investigate it, and neither could I, and thus itself does nothing to modern apologetics. But living then, having all of these witnesses; one could deny it's true (simply call them conspiratorial liars, for instance), but there is no reason to doubt these witnesses. How does this affect modern apologetics? The people living at the time had every reason to embrace Christ's resurrection and every opportunity to prove it didn't happen!
|
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 10/15/09 at 07:11 PM | Reply with quote #22 |
|
Arg!!!! I finished my reply and lost it all when I hit "post message." Suffice to say, this will be much shorter...
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by tcampen
Which of the 500 are named? I know he names several disciples, but those are presented separately from the 500. Maybe I misread the account of
"and that he appeared to Cephas (or Peter); then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep" My fault...the wording I chose insinuated that Paul named some of the 500. I just mean, contextually, he was naming specific instances with specific people, and this mass-appearing was another such specific instance. There is no reason to accept the other accounts while rejecting this one.
Quote: Quote: I don't know if I'd except to find writings from the 500 on a mass vision (or appearance) of Jesus, necessarily. But I don't see good reason to just accept Paul's to claim Jesus appeared to 500 people. Remember, he's writing about something that supposedly happened to other people 20 years earlier to the church he started in Greece. This is not "CSI Antiquity" where claims are going to be investigated and vetted as we think of in our time. Even if someone wanted to it couldn't have been reasonably investigated at the time...
The point is that Paul's claim about the 500 doesn't really do anything for the apologetics of the resurrection, except perhaps bolster the conviction of those who already accept it. I'm just not seeing the significance of it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonably investigated," but it most assuredly could have been! Unless you think that he must have provided all 500 (itself an impossibility because Paul concedes some are dead); there is even no reason to believe these 500 were not in the same general area (after all, they were all in the same area at the appearance).
"Could" have been investigated, but I see no reason to think it would have. Remember, Paul was writing 20 years after the event, to his church of believers in Greece. Why would any of those Greek people even think to travel accross the mediteranean to try to find some of those 500 Jews in Jerusalem to see if there Church founder's claims really held up to scrutiny? I just don't see anyone challenging this - not because they were all close to the sources - the church in Greece wouldn't be that at all. But because people believe without being eyewitnesses, without talking to people who were eyewitnesses, without even witnessing a single Jesus type miracle. (Just look at the 2 billion Christians today.) And there is no reason to think a non-believer would have known about the 1 Corinthian statement of 500, or if he did, would even think to bother with it.
Quote: It's true that now you could not investigate it, and neither could I, and thus itself does nothing to modern apologetics. But living then, having all of these witnesses; one could deny it's true (simply call them conspiratorial liars, for instance), but there is no reason to doubt these witnesses. How does this affect modern apologetics? The people living at the time had every reason to embrace Christ's resurrection and every opportunity to prove it didn't happen!
But why would anyone expect the people from the church in Greece to think they would go to the trouble. This is what I don't understand. Just because someone could have done something does not in any way mean there is any good reason to think they would have.
|
| Loading... | |
| RandyE |
| Posted 10/15/09 at 07:40 PM | Reply with quote #23 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampen
Arg!!!! I finished my reply and lost it all... 
Quote: But why would anyone expect the people from the church in Greece to think they would go to the trouble. This is what I don't understand. Just because someone could have done something does not in any way mean there is any good reason to think they would have.
As long as you admit that they could have, I think that is sufficient to establish that the objection is not warranted. In conclusion, it does nothing for someone like you or myself, since we cannot investigate the claim. But it does tell us something of Paul, who was willing to be checked out!
|
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 10/16/09 at 12:03 PM | Reply with quote #24 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyE[QUOTE
But why would anyone expect the people from the church in Greece to think they would go to the trouble. This is what I don't understand. Just because someone could have done something does not in any way mean there is any good reason to think they would have.
As long as you admit that they could have, I think that is sufficient to establish that the objection is not warranted. In conclusion, it does nothing for someone like you or myself, since we cannot investigate the claim. But it does tell us something of Paul, who was willing to be checked out!
I'm not suggesting Paul was lying, for clearly the claim of 500 was something told to him (he was not among them). By who we don't know. Paul probably did believe it. The vagueness of the references indicates an inablity to investigate it even if one wanted to, but I still see so reason to think Paul would even think of whether anyone would even think to want to investigate it. I guess I still don't see it. I'm not trying to be dense, I just sincerely don't see this as amount to much at all. |
| Loading... | |
| RandyE |
| Posted 10/16/09 at 03:54 PM | Reply with quote #25 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampen
I'm not suggesting Paul was lying, for clearly the claim of 500 was something told to him (he was not among them). By who we don't know. Paul probably did believe it. The vagueness of the references indicates an inablity to investigate it even if one wanted to, but I still see so reason to think Paul would even think of whether anyone would even think to want to investigate it. I guess I still don't see it. I'm not trying to be dense, I just sincerely don't see this as amount to much at all. I don't think you're dense. But I do think we probably have to agree to disagree on this one! |
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 10/16/09 at 06:20 PM | Reply with quote #26 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by tcampen
I'm not suggesting Paul was lying, for clearly the claim of 500 was something told to him (he was not among them). By who we don't know. Paul probably did believe it. The vagueness of the references indicates an inablity to investigate it even if one wanted to, but I still see so reason to think Paul would even think of whether anyone would even think to want to investigate it. I guess I still don't see it. I'm not trying to be dense, I just sincerely don't see this as amount to much at all. I don't think you're dense. But I do think we probably have to agree to disagree on this one!
And do so very respectfully. thanks
|
| Loading... | |
