Can You Find Fault With My Reasoning About Jesus?

Can You Find Fault With My Reasoning About Jesus?

95+% of scholars from all sorts of backgrounds in the past half century who do their work on the resurrection have common ground that Paul wrote and believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 and 2 then it is incumbent on all of us to address what can be discerned from this.

Paul said he met with James, Peter and John several times. Paul was saved within 2 years of Jesus' death on the cross and met James and Peter three years after that which places their meeting at +5 years from the cross.

James is pointed out as unique to indicate we should know who he is. We know James, the brother of Jesus, was the Elder of Jerusalem and did not believe Jesus was God when he was growing up with Him. The only other significant James was the brother of John who was martyred before the meeting of John and Peter with James.

When they met it is safe to say they agreed on seeing the resurrection of Jesus, though Paul's seeing was somewhat different because it was post-ascension. That shouldn't pose a problem I would think. Paul mightily explains why resurrection is the key and his faith is pointless if he and the apostles did not see Jesus resurrected. He is being very honest with us. Are you really prepared to cast him as a fantastic liar as well as the original eyewitness apostles who said they saw Jesus resurrected?

How then do we explain this if it didn't happen? We can't, for group hallucinations according to psychology are impossible; that is, it is impossible for a group to see, talk with, walk with and touch something that is not there when they are altogether at the same time seeing this Jesus.

They were martyred, except for John, as recorded by the church fathers in the late first and second centuries. If they didn't really believe what they said and were conspiring to make a cult, would they go to their death knowingly it was all but assured? With the martyrs of Christians such as James, brother of John, and Stephen the deacon, surely they would have backed off, because their deaths would be soon at hand.

You should probably give your life to Christ then because of what Pascal said. If you are right to reject Jesus by saying Jesus is not God, then there is little gained, for you only live a couple of decades and that is the end of it in the backdrop of the past 13.7 billion years. But if you are wrong by saying Jesus is not God and Jesus is God, nothing can be worse than eternal damnation.

If we want to be perfectly logical and objective about this then would it not be insane to refuse what Jesus did for you on the cross to save you from the penalty of sin, and to give you eternal life?

Let's say for sake of argument you are one of those 5% who don't accept 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 and 2, and you feel this is an acceptable position to take because you are special and feel you intuitively sense it must be the answer though you can't reason out an explanation. What then would convince you?

Since you do not accept anything in the Bible, can you at least accept there is an uncreated creator, since nothing in nature happens all by itself, leaving the only possibility that the uncreated created? Why do you think a God who leaves His creation unattended is better than a God who personally gets involves by atoning for sins?

If you won't accept the 45 early sources of the death, deity and resurrection of Jesus from skeptics and non-skeptics, then is not true that nothing would convince you?

Let me ask it another way. If it is true that Jesus died on the cross to save you from your sins and give eternal life, what evidence would you accept?