"Evidence" for God

[Nottheworld]

Reasoning, not matter how flawless it seems, needs evidence to back it up.

Hence, as we have discussed the evidence which you couldn't find fault with. So because of the evidence and with proper reasoning you should give your life to Christ today from the heart.

The evidences and reasoning:

1) Nature can't cause itself, because the evidence is trillions of causes and no evidence for something in nature happening all by itself. It requires a cause that is uncaused. That which is uncaused is what we call God. And the universe can't always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience, for mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does.

2) Who is God? Jesus. But why?

The evidence is the multiple attestation in various group settings of the eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus resurrected. Group hallucinations are impossible. If you have no naturalistic explanation to explain away the data of the New Testament, a few secular sources who mention Jesus, early apologists and church fathers; then you don't even have to say it, but you are admitting Jesus is God.

The second generation apostles, called Apostolic fathers, such as Polycarp who was a student of John was taught by John that John saw Jesus resurrected; and Clement of Rome, another Apostolic father, was a student of the apostle Peter who said Peter taught him that Peter saw Jesus resurrected. Were Peter and John lying to their students?

When Peter, Paul, James and other Apostles were martyred for saying they saw Jesus resurrected, and Stephen a deacon, show me where in history people die for something they know is a lie? You need to stop killing my brain cells with your mindlessness and address the central issue - we call this the Minimal Facts Approach because it is not dependent on inerrancy of Scripture, just those few things most skeptical scholars agree on:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts."

The only possibly conclusion for this evidence is that logically Jesus was resurrected and therefore, He must be God just like He said He was.

The most dependable non-Christian sources such as the the Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian and Mara Bar-Serapion all testify to Jesus having lived and died on the cross and said there existed a claim about Jesus being resurrected from the dead and being God.

12 Groups saw Jesus Resurrected

Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18), Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5), Jesus' brother (insider skeptic) James (1 Cor. 15.7).
2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10).
3) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13; Luke 24.13-34).
4) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.35-43; John 20.19-25).
5) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5).
6) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14).
7) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20).
8) A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6).
9) "Then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7) which includes the Twelve plus all the other apostles.
10) Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44-49).
11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Mark 16.19,20; Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.3-8).
12) Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10).

For further consideration, observe these points:

• Luke has no problem between Paul's appearance and those made to the disciples in Luke 24, Acts 1.1-11. Luke records both types of appearances of Jesus to the disciples and to Paul.
• "Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8).
• "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1).
• Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different.
• Evolution of a resurrection theory actually devolved from the accounts of the 40 days with the disciples to when Paul saw Jesus (Gal. 1.15-16).
• "To reveal His Son in me" (Gal. 1.16,18) took three years following the Damascus road experience. Don't mistake this portion as being the bodily appearance.
• "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9.7). This presumes that Paul saw the man.
• Many years after Paul saw the vision on the Damascus road, he testified, "Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26.19).
• Paul reports knowing some of the disciples personally who had seen Jesus resurrected including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this (Acts 9.26-30; 15.1-35). And Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.11 that whether "it was I or they, this is what we preach," referring to the resurrection of Jesus.
• Altogether, there is Paul's writings, oral traditions in creeds, hymns and sermon summaries in various NT books, and writings of the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Clement of Rome who personally knew the Apostles, John and Peter.

Now if so many people saw Jesus resurrected, is it really so hard to believe the saved will be resurrected at the consummation of the age of the dispensation of grace-the end of the mystery age of the church?

[rewq]

Christianity and a Christ-like figures existed up to thousands of years beforehand.

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-c...re-date-jesus/

[Nottheworld]

The Zeitgeist Response addressed all these alleged claims of Christ-like figures and they all fail. All of them! There are no stories of resurrections prior to Jesus. Jesus calling Himself the uncreated Creator, God in the flesh, prophesying His resurrection and then doing it with multiple attestation in various group settings and no way to explain it away naturalistically, seals the deal!

http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...ight=zeitgeist

Now what are you going to do? There is really only one valid option, and that is give your life to Christ, otherwise you are going to Hell with murderers, rapists, false witnesses, Satan, the Antichrist, the False Prophet, fallen angels, and the demons, etc.

One would have to conclude, you're a bad guy. How you respond to Christ in this life will determine where you spend eternity. Your choice. Check your flesh and just sense how hard you are fighting against Christ. Seems inordinate doesn't it? How many times do you have to be wrong before you will accept the only way to the Father is through Him?

You have been wrong every time, on ever point. Are you purposefully mindless because you want to go to Hell or not being honest with yourself in fighting God to the end? Either way, it is your choice to be that way, for which God can only respond by putting you in Hell for eternity, because once you are there you will never repent. That's how it works! Actually, once you leave your body of flesh and blood, you will never repent. Even when you are resurrected and come before God's Great White Throne though you will be silent as you are judged, you won't repent and then God fully justified throws you into Hell for all eternity.

How sad for you. You can see why God had to create a Hell, because he can't let you be anywhere near those who love Him. That would be like letting a rapist out of jail who will just commit his crime against his victims again. No! He belongs in jail for life! As you would belong in Hell for forever!

[trewq]

I like it how you delete most of my previous posts except the part that you can argue most against. Not only does that make me moderately vexed, but it proves that you can't hold your own ground in this debate and that you can't tell the difference between regular font and italicized font.

The way you set up this website is that you delete my account every time I make a post, so I'm forced to make a new one. Not only that, but I can't reply or quote in any of the already-made threads. The only thing I can do is make a new thread.

So I copy and paste the original message, occasionally cutting out tidbits here and there because I already discussed the issue presented in that particular paragraph, and put everything in italics so you know the difference between what you said and what I said. I make sure that whatever I cut out will still leave your words in their original context. You didn't really have a problem with that before, but the last two posts you did.

Honestly, I think that's fine, maybe it is confusing for you. What you could have done instead of deleting all except one sentence of my post, however, is put them in quotes for me since I could not do that myself (if that is at all possible). It would have taken up very little of your time and everyone would have their way.

Instead of doing that, however, you cut my post down so that the original message has completely vanished. That makes me quite annoyed. Most of my counter-arguments are being completely ignored.

I am, therefore, ending this debate here and now, and not just because I really don't want any more discrimination, and not just because I don't really want to deal with you anymore. You see, both of us are very adamant in what we think is true. In the end, nothing will have happened. I would still be an atheist and you would still be a Christian. If you look up the Nightline face-off on ABC, you will find just that result. The believers remain believers and the non-believers remain non-believers. I honestly feel quite stupid for even continuing this debate with you. I was being foolish. I did it even though I knew what the outcome was going to be.

If this debate has done anything, it has created an even greater rift and created more strife between the two factions. We really don't need this. Christians and atheists need to be united to move society forward. We may not like each other, but we must respect each other.

In moving toward that goal, you must first understand us. Understand who we are, what out philosophy is. Understand that we are not evil despite what your religion says. I beg you to dare to think for yourself, and not just to slap a label on us that Jesus and your god printed out for you. It isn't right, no matter who does it. Doing that creates disunity, which is bad under any circumstance.

Please understand that we want the best for society, we really do (or at least I do, I can't speak for everyone).

Please understand that I have thought my de-conversion process through. It literally took months to finally let go of Christianity. Please know that I felt what I thought to be hell within my heart through this entire process. It was slow, painful, excruciating even, to let go of my preconceived bias, but once I did, I felt freedom. I felt that Christianity was a prison that I had created for myself, and now I can believe whatever I see fit to believe. Please also understand that I am not attacking your religion when I say this. I am just giving you my story.

Last of all, please understand that we are human, just like you. We have hopes and dreams, just like you. We have goals, just like you. We get angry, frustruated, depressed, annoyed, and stressed, just like you. We have our own set of morals, just like you. We have out own philosphy and worldview, just like you. In fact, if you think about it, we aren't really that different. Only on the outside are we different. In essence, we are the same.

Please understand that.

[Churchwork]

I like it how you delete most of my previous posts except the part that you can argue most against. Not only does that make me moderately vexed, but it proves that you can't hold your own ground in this debate and that you can't tell the difference between regular font and italicized font.

You were warned many times to use quotes. Nothing gets deleted if you stop confusing the text between the poster and the person you are replying to. Obviously, something had to be done. None of your posts were deleted, but your last couple were shortened because you refused to change your ways. Sometimes you make mistakes and forget to use italics. That's why quotes are used. It is the standard protocol. Accept it. This takes humility.

The way you set up this website is that you delete my account every time I make a post, so I'm forced to make a new one. Not only that, but I can't reply or quote in any of the already-made threads. The only thing I can do is make a new thread.

You know we don't accept registrations from junk email providers, for there is no way to contact you afterward if need be. When you register, you are allowed to post or reply in the Introductions forums after you read the forum rules which takes 5 minutes for the clock to wind down. Once your account is approved, you can post in the other forums. You can reply and quote existing threads under Introduction, just not the other forums until your account is approved. The instructions are quite clear after you register and then confirm your email. I don't know how to make them any clearer.

So I copy and paste the original message, occasionally cutting out tidbits here and there because I already discussed the issue presented in that particular paragraph, and put everything in italics so you know the difference between what you said and what I said. I make sure that whatever I cut out will still leave your words in their original context. You didn't really have a problem with that before, but the last two posts you did.

Read Board Etiquette #9. No, I never liked it when people just use italics and assume we are suppose to know whose italics those are. By the way, when you read a book, a person might write, Churchwork said, "this or that" and it is often indented. It is just not there in italics without delineating who it is as you do it. Why do you hold to a lesser standard then common publishing?

Honestly, I think that's fine, maybe it is confusing for you. What you could have done instead of deleting all except one sentence of my post, however, is put them in quotes for me since I could not do that myself (if that is at all possible). It would have taken up very little of your time and everyone would have their way.

Several times I did put them in quotes for you and said so, but after several warnings telling you this, you still refused to do it. Don't you read the "Last edited...reason:" given at the bottom of each post when I have to edit a post?

Instead of doing that, however, you cut my post down so that the original message has completely vanished. That makes me quite annoyed. Most of my counter-arguments are being completely ignored.

That was necessary after several posts you still refuse to change your ways. You are free to post those same things again, if you use quotes. Don't you see when you refuse to do the right thing, there are consequences?

I am, therefore, ending this debate here and now, and not just because I really don't want any more discrimination, and not just because I don't really want to deal with you anymore. You see, both of us are very adamant in what we think is true. In the end, nothing will have happened. I would still be an atheist and you would still be a Christian. If you look up the Nightline face-off on ABC, you will find just that result. The believers remain believers and the non-believers remain non-believers. I honestly feel quite stupid for even continuing this debate with you. I was being foolish. I did it even though I knew what the outcome was going to be.

Don't run away because of your own negligence. You haven't been discriminated against. If you were, please show it. In the end, you have used your own belligerent behavior as an excuse to deny dealing with the issue before us and then blame in the process. I was never a believer before the age of 33, then I became a believer, so that destroys your theory. What you should have said was, you can't come to Christ unless God gives you the grace, and God won't give you the grace unless you come to Him with an honest heart. You are still being dishonest with yourself. Your reasoning is still flawed, and God is not giving you the grace to see how it is flawed, even after I spell it out to you. You still can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection, nor overturn the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself. I watched the Nightline ABC face-off, and they are wrong. You can come to Christ. Don't believe Satan's lie you can't come to Christ.

If this debate has done anything, it has created an even greater rift and created more strife between the two factions. We really don't need this. Christians and atheists need to be united to move society forward. We may not like each other, but we must respect each other.

Since the rift is consummated in a Heaven and Hell, why be surprised by this? You can never be united as an atheist when you keep calling Jesus a liar, even though He fully proved Himself and that He created you. You ought not to respect liars and sinners who bear false witness. You can be respectful and courteous, but you don't have to respect such evilness.

In moving toward that goal, you must first understand us. Understand who we are, what out philosophy is. Understand that we are not evil despite what your religion says. I beg you to dare to think for yourself, and not just to slap a label on us that Jesus and your god printed out for you. It isn't right, no matter who does it. Doing that creates disunity, which is bad under any circumstance.

You are evil, for you reject God even though God proved His existence. Jesus destroyed the character of the Pharisees; so has your character been annihilated. The disunity is caused by you, for knowing God has existed from the beginning; therefore, realize you are the source of the problem. The only reason you refuse Christ is for the reason Jesus gave:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3.19-21)

Please understand that we want the best for society, we really do (or at least I do, I can't speak for everyone).

Every man has a conscience and wants some good to some extent. That is hardly the issue, for what we are talking about is salvation. Even one little sin separates you from God and salvation is not by works, lest any man should boast. Unless you accept God's way of reconciliation back to Him, you will end up in Hell. Most assuredly! You're addressing the exponential progression of conscience, not the fact of there being an eternal separation from God at the end.

Please understand that I have thought my de-conversion process through. It literally took months to finally let go of Christianity. Please know that I felt what I thought to be hell within my heart through this entire process. It was slow, painful, excruciating even, to let go of my preconceived bias, but once I did, I felt freedom. I felt that Christianity was a prison that I had created for myself, and now I can believe whatever I see fit to believe. Please also understand that I am not attacking your religion when I say this. I am just giving you my story.

You were never converted in the first place, for the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved. In other words, you need to let go of your mistaken assumptions. Christianity is a prison to the unsaved such as yourself when you live a lie thinking you are saved when you are not and that fact of your foretaste of Hell even now before you are eventually resurrected to live out eternity in Hell. Don't be surprised by this. Everything is as it should be! I have told you the truth.

Paul said, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1.12). We, too, have believed and know the One in whom we are eternally secure. We, too, are fully persuaded that "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for [us], who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1.3-5).

"For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11.29).

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

Last of all, please understand that we are human, just like you. We have hopes and dreams, just like you. We have goals, just like you. We get angry, frustruated, depressed, annoyed, and stressed, just like you. We have our own set of morals, just like you. We have out own philosphy and worldview, just like you. In fact, if you think about it, we aren't really that different. Only on the outside are we different. In essence, we are the same.

Please understand that.

You are made in God's image just like me; you can never cease to exist. You are intrinsic value to God, not instrumental value. The only major difference between us at the end of the day is that you are going to Hell and I am going to the New City in the New Earth where Heaven and Earth will come together. In that sence, we are eternally different, for I am a child of God and you are child of Satan. That can't be a good thing for you. The Bible says one day we will no longer shed a tear for you, for you will be where you belong.

[Rewq]

Common publishing? This is an internet forum, not a publishing company. Nevertheless, I will admit that I may have made some mistakes in my italics use and will heed your request to be clearer.

[Nottheworld]

Make clear who you are addressing like in published books. Hopefully next time you use quotes. It's part of the Board Etiquette and main forum functions. It takes humility to give into reasonable requests, like God said to Adam, don't eat of the tree with the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, because God knew how man would misuse that information. It is not that God wouldn't want man to know, but all in good time! It's for your own good. You'll feel better when you are not being obstinate. It's also more considerate to others, who can read the information in a clearer format.

I am sure you have many issues with Scripture, but you are using a faulty approach trying to pick away at everything, which all have been addressed somewhere or another by Scholars and on these forums. They don't infringe on the main proof Jesus is God. In fact, the more you study apparent discrepancies, the more they convince you the Bible is inerrant, if you read with an open mind and not by your petty self. The reason you contend so hard against the Bible is because the proof is so solid. Before you think there is some discrepancy, do you find out what Christians or Christian scholars say? If you don't, you are just being narrow minded. For you should at least admit if the Bible is true you don't ready by the Holy Spirit because you don't have the Holy Spirit. If you don't read by the Holy Spirit you read by self and the evil spirit, logically speaking, so you twist and malign.

The Minimal Facts Approach says we will just use that data which almost all skeptical scholars agree on, and see if that points to the resurrection and deity of Christ. It does! (See the 12 facts above or below.)

It's not an argument from popularity, but because of the reasons they use why it is assured Jesus died on the cross and the disciples truly believe they saw Him resurrected. Since there is no way to explain this away naturalistically, you know Jesus is God and salvation is through Him. If you refuse His atonement, then God has no other means by which you can be saved and will put you in Hell for all eternity.

This approach is corroborated by Jesus as well, because He said the number one proof of Him being God would be His resurrection. He would raise His temple up on the 3rd day. This is not just the prophecy of Jesus but also from centuries before the OT. Read Isaiah 53. Ancient Israel believed in resurrection as well.

Furthermore, you can't use the argument for late dating or legend, because when you compare the earliest known documents from the time of the events of all individuals in history, nobody is more well documented, nor well attested to in those documents. By this way, the difference is astounding. No person even remotely compares to Jesus Christ for the documentation that supports Him and His uniqueness and resurrection. So you see, God made sure this would be so!

And by all means, if you want to compare other claims for the uncreated Creator you may do so. Jesus even challenges you to do so and compare His unique details. Jesus always comes out on top and trumps any other by His very nature, attestation, extent to the material we have, and religio-historical context of 40 writers across 1500 years in complete agreement.

After you are wrong a hundred times about Jesus, or a thousand or even 10,000, it's time to receive Him into your life. How many times do you have to be wrong for heaven's sake and never are right even once? That's illogical and without evidence on your side. The number of times you have been wrong so far is getting absurd, yet you still hold out for the lie. I believe this is the very nature of someone going to Hell, that is to say, there is nothing God can do to convince you. Nothing! Therefore, you truly belong in Hell.

Alas, I am repeating myself! It's not that the truth is unreasonable, but it is unloved.

Praise the Lord!

[poiu]

This was a great inconvenience for me. I cannot use quotes at all unless I copy and paste the quote box.

[Nottheworld]

The evidences and reasoning:

1) Nature can't cause itself, because the evidence is trillions of causes and no evidence for something in nature happening all by itself. It requires a cause that is uncaused. That which is uncaused is what we call God. And the universe can't always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience, for mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does.

2) Who is God? Jesus. But why?

The evidence is the multiple attestation in various group settings of the eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus resurrected. Group hallucinations are impossible. If you have no naturalistic explanation to explain away the data of the New Testament, a few secular sources who mention Jesus, early apologists and church fathers; then you don't even have to say it, but you are admitting Jesus is God.

The second generation apostles, called Apostolic fathers, such as Polycarp who was a student of John was taught by John that John saw Jesus resurrected; and Clement of Rome, another Apostolic father, was a student of the apostle Peter who said Peter taught him that Peter saw Jesus resurrected. Were Peter and John lying to their students?

When Peter, Paul, James and other Apostles were martyred for saying they saw Jesus resurrected, and Stephen a deacon, show me where in history people die for something they know is a lie? You need to stop killing my brain cells with your mindlessness and address the central issue - we call this the Minimal Facts Approach because it is not dependent on inerrancy of Scripture, just those few things most skeptical scholars agree on:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts."

The only possibly conclusion for this evidence is that logically Jesus was resurrected and therefore, He must be God just like He said He was.

The most dependable non-Christian sources such as the the Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian and Mara Bar-Serapion all testify to Jesus having lived and died on the cross and said there existed a claim about Jesus being resurrected from the dead and being God.

12 Groups saw Jesus Resurrected

Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18), Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5), Jesus' brother (insider skeptic) James (1 Cor. 15.7).
2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10).
3) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13; Luke 24.13-34).
4) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.35-43; John 20.19-25).
5) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5).
6) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14).
7) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20).
8) A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6).
9) "Then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7) which includes the Twelve plus all the other apostles.
10) Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44-49).
11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Mark 16.19,20; Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.3-8).
12) Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10).

For further consideration, observe these points:

• Luke has no problem between Paul's appearance and those made to the disciples in Luke 24, Acts 1.1-11. Luke records both types of appearances of Jesus to the disciples and to Paul.
• "Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8).
• "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1).
• Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different.
• Evolution of a resurrection theory actually devolved from the accounts of the 40 days with the disciples to when Paul saw Jesus (Gal. 1.15-16).
• "To reveal His Son in me" (Gal. 1.16,18) took three years following the Damascus road experience. Don't mistake this portion as being the bodily appearance.
• "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9.7). This presumes that Paul saw the man.
• Many years after Paul saw the vision on the Damascus road, he testified, "Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26.19).
• Paul reports knowing some of the disciples personally who had seen Jesus resurrected including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this (Acts 9.26-30; 15.1-35). And Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.11 that whether "it was I or they, this is what we preach," referring to the resurrection of Jesus.
• Altogether, there is Paul's writings, oral traditions in creeds, hymns and sermon summaries in various NT books, and writings of the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Clement of Rome who personally knew the Apostles, John and Peter.

Now if so many people saw Jesus resurrected, is it really so hard to believe the saved will be resurrected at the consummation of the age of the dispensation of grace-the end of the mystery age of the church?