3933
Comments (277)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Pearls_Swine 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, the book vouches for itself by claiming people totally witnessed it all, and some died?

Even if people died for it, that doesn't prove that it's true. It's circular reasoning.

1
couch_pundit 1 point ago +1 / -0

The book was written after. The question is historical events and figures. St. Paul, for example, is a notable historical figure and author. He at first prosecuted early Christians, then converted to Christianity himself, and he was in an intense direct contact with the first disciples of Jesus and other people who firsthand saw Him resurrected.

1
Pearls_Swine 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, hearsay from a dead guy?

1
couch_pundit 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hah, he's necessarily dead, as this was more than a generation's lifetime ago.

As to hearsay, it is an unquestionable fact that Paul, as the direct founder of the Gentile branch of the Church (the only one existing now), existed, and a great deal about his life is known. In particular, it is known that he persecuted Christians and participated in one of the earliest executions of them (that of Saint Stephen) and that he was friends with and later had tensions with Peter (who was among the many people he had contact with who saw risen Jesus, which is simply what set everything in motion in the first place).

Besides, the well-known standard opinion around about this whole ordeal was simply that the disciples stole the body. But they, and only they, knew that they didn't.