How Did Paul Know Jesus Was Resurrected?

[Secret Alias]

I apologize to the forum. "outhouse" is a sock puppet I created to help me win debates. I put stupid arguments in the mouth of a deliberately crafted caricature of a dim witted American atheist who hasn't quite lost his evangelical presuppositions just so I can look reasonable by comparison. I will henceforth abandon this trick.

[Ulan]

LOL. That would at least be some entertaining act.

The funny thing here is that I don't really have any problems with how outhouse sees most aspects of early Christian history. As he doesn't tire to tell us, what he says is pretty much along the lines many of the more reasonable NT scholars would also follow, and I assume it's also the baseline many other posters here have. It's not unreasonable. It's even the baseline I make use of in many discussions, as it's most of the time a valid fallback option. So, if outhouse stated specific arguments why we should prefer a certain point of view over another one, there wouldn't be much to to be upset about, as long as it stays sound and is not a simple argument from authority.

However, this baseline is not sacrosanct. It possesses quite a few fault lines where things don't make much sense. Pursuing other ways of explanation is a natural thing to do in this context. Of course, these ways may be completely wrong, and if anyone thinks so, they are free to argue against those. That's even helpful to discover errors. However, an argument from authority doesn't cut it. It hardly ever does. I sometimes use those myself, if I don't care much to debate a specific point, but I have to admit, I mostly feel a bit sleazy in those cases. They only have a use to terminate a line of thought, but don't help with discussion. Don't use those, at least not without the real arguments behind them.

[Peter Kirby]

Like that quaint tale of half a million eyewitnesses to Jesus' death of yours that, on close view, collapses like the house of cards it is.

You cannot refute it, in any way shape or form.

So it factually does not collapse.

But to be clear lets quote me correctly, "half a million possible witnesses" is generally what I state. EP Sanders places it at 400,000, Josephus higher.

These "witnesses" are, in practice, not witnesses. They are hypothetical witnesses, which are by their hypothetical nature emptied of the very function of witnessing. A useful witness provides their testimony for examination. Hypothetical witnesses have no value as witnesses.

Seconded that outhouse's posts generally bring down the quality of the forum at this time. You can do alright when you write a few paragraphs, sometimes. Unfortunately a lot of your posts are rant-laden buckshot one-liners. Useless stuff. Like these useless witnesses.

Also, the justification of "[y]ou cannot refute it" is the creed of the crank. FYI, that defense can merely furnish a possibility.

[outhouse]

Like that quaint tale of half a million eyewitnesses to Jesus' death of yours that, on close view, collapses like the house of cards it is.

You cannot refute it, in any way shape or form.

So it factually does not collapse.

But to be clear lets quote me correctly, "half a million possible witnesses" is generally what I state. EP Sanders places it at 400,000, Josephus higher.

These "witnesses" are, in practice, not witnesses. They are hypothetical witnesses, which are by their hypothetical nature emptied of the very function of witnessing. A useful witness provides their testimony for examination. Hypothetical witnesses have no value as witnesses.

Seconded that outhouse's posts generally bring down the quality of the forum at this time. You can do alright when you write a few paragraphs, sometimes. Unfortunately a lot of your posts are rant-laden buckshot one-liners. Useless stuff. Like these useless witnesses.

Also, the justification of "[y]ou cannot refute it" is the creed of the crank. FYI, that defense can merely furnish a possibility.

Much of what I'm addressing in these one liners, are nothing more then worthless imaginative rhetorical rants from Stephan that are laughable at best.

It is not scholarly work. Your forum is a place where crakpots can voice their opinions freely. I do have fun messing with these types. And I do thank you for banning many that were out in space. I'm not the first to notice Stephens rhetorical rants.


You do influence my personal study that is carried further then this forum, and by me asking for some sort of credibility from your posters here if anything is raising the bar keeping crackpots in their place.

Everyone is on equal footing, and my replies raise or are lowered, based on the topic at hand, and who is trying to pass off what kind of crap OR qualified reasonable questions.

Do you see me addressing Ben like such? or DC? Or Diogenes ? or do I keep my mouth shut and ears open?


I look up to you, and a few here.

[outhouse]

These "witnesses" are, in practice, not witnesses. They are hypothetical witnesses, which are by their hypothetical nature emptied of the very function of witnessing. A useful witness provides their testimony for examination. Hypothetical witnesses have no value as witnesses.

.

Regardless. We had roughly half a million people at these Passovers before the temple fell by all credible accounts.

Victims often crucified were said to have been done so at entry ways where they would set an example of what not to do.


While I would agree half a million are not credible or direct witnesses, they are POSSIBLE witnesses with different degrees of contact to the tradioti0ns being discussed, even if just hearing about the crucified man.

In law this hearsay actually qualifies under excited utterance. So it is not without value. We also have an argument from silence that not one of these people have a tradition of denying said event happened. It may be weak evidence, but it still is evidence. E.P. Sanders studied this because it was important.

[outhouse]

What community?


.

Have you even read Pauls supposed 7 attributed epistle's/gospels ?


The epistle header clearly states many were co authored and clearly state who was part of said epistle.


The first thing you learn in a credible course at any university on this topic is that these were community efforts.

[Ulan]

In law this hearsay actually qualifies under excited utterance. So it is not without value.

And yet, none of these witnesses says anything, so the "witness" point is completely moot.

We also have an argument from silence that not one of these people have a tradition of denying said event happened. It may be weak evidence, but it still is evidence. E.P. Sanders studied this because it was important.

It's not important, because it's a stupid argument. Why would you assume there to be a witness (i) 40 years after the fact when nearly everyone was dead (ii) denying the death of a person he or she had obviously zero interest in those 40 years ago. In case this person didn't exist, there would be absolutely no reason to expect such a negative statement. This whole "weak evidence" is based on faulty logic.

[Ulan]

What community?

Have you even read Pauls supposed 7 attributed epistle's/gospels ?

Yes.

The epistle header clearly states many were co authored and clearly state who was part of said epistle.
The first thing you learn in a credible course at any university on this topic is that these were community efforts.

There's a lot to say about these community efforts, and it explains some of the reworkings of the letters and the collection activity (see for example Trobisch's three "collection" stages). However, this still only concerns Paul's 7 attributed letters that don't know anything about a Galilean (or a preacher or teacher). Which means it doesn't explain your statement I objected to.

[outhouse]

And yet, none of these witnesses says anything, so the "witness" point is completely moot. .

It is factually not moot.

And things were said in oral traditions, regardless of his historicity. With such large Passover crowds a crucified man or men, would be known by many would they not?

Even if just noticing a crucified Galilean peasant, thousands could have been actual eyewitnesses witness, combined or adding those who heard people talking about it.

This is not a yes or no "point" It is a value "point" from no value, to some value.

This is all the foundation as to how Paul may have known about the resurrection mythology, so its far from moot.

[outhouse]

However, this still only concerns Paul's 7 attributed letters that don't know anything about a Galilean (or a preacher or teacher). Which means it doesn't explain your statement I objected to.

That is fine.


But it has nothing to do with the community effort. The social anthropology does not point to an isolated scribe, it all points to Pater Familias in the Diaspora that were communities within themselves. IT took a community just to survive, let alone be able to read and write.

and it explains some of the reworkings of the letters

In context we are talking about the original epistles, in themselves.

(see for example Trobisch's three "collection" stages).

Why would I use an obscure scholars opinion?