A question for atheists . . .

[37818]

And this "experiment" will provide empirically verifiable evidence of God; or merely a warm fuzzy feeling.

A warm fuzzy feeling would not be it.

The question is a matter of how you know what you know? Knowing has to fall into that category. It will be a first level knowing, personal experience. What is empirical will be the written claims of the gospel of John. Which is a second level of knowing, the witness of others. The third level of knowing is your reasoning.

[Tassman]

A warm fuzzy feeling would not be it.

The question is a matter of how you know what you know? Knowing has to fall into that category. It will be a first level knowing, personal experience. What is empirical will be the written claims of the gospel of John. Which is a second level of knowing, the witness of others. The third level of knowing is your reasoning.

In short a delusional experience unsupported by any substantive evidence. This is where we came in.

[Roy]

The question is a matter of how you know what you know? Knowing has to fall into that category. It will be a first level knowing, personal experience. What is empirical will be the written claims of the gospel of John. Which is a second level of knowing, the witness of others. The third level of knowing is your reasoning.

So you class working something out for yourself as being less reliable than being told something by another. I suppose that is appropriate for you, given your abysmal reasoning ability, but not everyone has your limitations.

[Kbertsche]

Certainly Paul and the other apostles who had similar post-mortem visions of Jesus, believed him to be real and assumed that Jesus was alive again. Paul and the others believed that Jesus had experienced a resurrection of the body, which had been transformed into an immortal or spiritual body before being exalted to heaven.

So far, so good. (Except that Paul implies in 1 Cor 15:45-47 that Jesus was "spiritual" or "heavenly" for his whole time in earth.)

But this is obviously not the ’fleshly’ body of the later traditions as found in the gospels, because it kept manifesting itself as far afield as Galilee and Damascus.

No, this is not obvious at all. According to the gospels, Jesus was able to immediately "teleport" himself across a lake (along with a boat full of disciples) (Jn. 6:21ff). He was able to do this in His physical body.

[shunyadragon]

So far, so good. (Except that Paul implies in 1 Cor 15:45-47 that Jesus was "spiritual" or "heavenly" for his whole time in earth.)

True, which makes the nature of Jesus Christ ultimately spiritual, and not physical.

No, this is not obvious at all. According to the gospels, Jesus was able to immediately "teleport" himself across a lake (along with a boat full of disciples) (Jn. 6:21ff). He was able to do this in His physical body.

Are you appealing to Star Wars scenario.

[Tassman]

So far, so good. (Except that Paul implies in 1 Cor 15:45-47 that Jesus was "spiritual" or "heavenly" for his whole time in earth.)

This would not alter the nature of the post resurrection body, i.e. a spiritual body, as presented in the earliest literature, i.e. the 1 Cor 15 Creed and Paul’s Damascene experience.

No, this is not obvious at all. According to the gospels, Jesus was able to immediately "teleport" himself across a lake (along with a boat full of disciples) (Jn. 6:21ff). He was able to do this in His physical body.

There are no miracles in the earliest literature...your Johannine example is very late, generally dated around 100 CE, which gives plenty time for the development of fanciful embellishments such as this.

[37818]

In short a delusional experience unsupported by any substantive evidence. This is where we came in.

So you are you then admitting your denial is delusional?

So you class working something out for yourself as being less reliable than being told something by another. I suppose that is appropriate for you, given your abysmal reasoning ability, but not everyone has your limitations.

How do you know anything?

[tabibito]

Interesting - How does Tassman know, alone of all the people in the world, what was in the earliest manuscripts?

[shunyadragon]

Interesting - How does Tassman know, alone of all the people in the world, what was in the earliest manuscripts?

Based on the earliest know manuscript record. How can you know that anything is earlier than this?

[Tassman]

Interesting - How does Tassman know, alone of all the people in the world, what was in the earliest manuscripts?

Virtually ALL biblical scholars consider that the earliest sections of the NT Canon comprise the authentic Pauline epistles and the Little Creed as found in 1 Cor 15. This is not in dispute.

[shunyadragon]

Virtually ALL biblical scholars consider that the earliest sections of the NT Canon comprise the authentic Pauline epistles and the Little Creed as found in 1 Cor 15. This is not in dispute.

Which is after the destruction of the Temple, Dated 50 to 60 AD.

[Roy]

Interesting - How does Tassman know, alone of all the people in the world, what was in the earliest manuscripts?

I suspect he meant the oldest extant texts, rather than the original manuscripts of which we only have copies.

[tabibito]

Virtually ALL biblical scholars consider that the earliest sections of the NT Canon comprise the authentic Pauline epistles and the Little Creed as found in 1 Cor 15. This is not in dispute.

Assuredly, consensus by those same scholars holds that Hebrews was written no later than AD64, and not by Paul. Nonetheless, the originals are not available for scrutiny.
And on what bases do claims that the gospels were written at a late date rest?

[tabibito]

Which is after the destruction of the Temple, Dated 50 to 60 AD.

AD 70. That too is a matter of undisputed record.

[Tassman]

Assuredly, consensus by those same scholars holds that Hebrews was written no later than AD64, and not by Paul. Nonetheless, the originals are not available for scrutiny.

Actually, the dating is generally estimated at c. 80–90 CE. And very few biblical scholars attribute Hebrews to Paul. According to Biblical Scholar Pheme Perkins “The elegance of the Greek and the sophistication of the theology do not fit the genuine Pauline epistles”.

And on what bases do claims that the gospels were written at a late date rest?

Already dealt with: See my post #195 to Kbertsche,

What is NOT in dispute is that virtually ALL biblical scholars consider that the earliest sections of the NT Canon comprise the authentic Pauline epistles and the Little Creed as found in 1 Cor 15 where we do NOT find a fleshly, miracle-working Jesus.