|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 20:44:40 GMT -5
DMG ~ There's a number of stories in the OT that I don't take literally or regard as historical evidence or explanation for what transpired down through the centuries. Also, I don't feel I'm the only Christian with that point of view. How some apologists make sense of these things is a puzzle to me, too? Then my question is which stories in the OT do you decide to take literally and those that you do not take literally?
What are the rules that you use to determine which to take "literally" and which not?
How do you decide the reliability of each?
DMG ~ You put me on the spot here! To be frankly honest with you in answer to your questions above, as I conveyed to Matt10 earlier, I don't feel all these stories which defy human reasoning as being meant for taking literally as historical fact. You have to go by the context of the time in which they were written, what was believed and taught at that time, and how much it measures up with today's standards for being a rational occurrence in history.
For instance, I do not buy the story in Matthew 27:52-53 of dead saints arising out of the ground and walking around town, showing themselves to many after a great earthquake occurred after Jesus' death on the Cross. I believe this story was probably added for enhancement to the gospel account, as you cannot find it in any of the other gospels. Also, there is no record of this ever occurring in the annals of the Roman historians from that time. If there was any truth to the story, I'm sure it would have made major headlines in the history books back in time, as the Romans were great record keepers. There's also no record of anything like this occurring mentioned in any of Paul's epistles relating to the resurrection account either. So, the possibility of it being added for embellishment to the gospel story is very probable, IMHO? In fact, I'm presently reading the book by Bart Ehrman, "How Jesus Became God," which helps one to evaluate the the way things were believed and taught during the first century and how to determine what was probably feasible and what was not a real occurrence within the gospel accounts. I know this method may distract from the "inerrancy of the Bible," but I believe you have to take all points into consideration before accepting something as literal truth. After all, our brains were given to us for a reason, don't you think?
However, the story of the earthquake and the temple curtain being ripped in two (Matthew 27:51) is found in all three synoptic gospel accounts (see link below) and possibly was a real occurrence according to Bible scholarship techniques in evaluating authenticity of scripture and determination of which verses were later additions to scripture. Just check out these articles below for more information regarding the earthquake and events that followed:
www.ensignmessage.com/archives/mysteriousevents.html
www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/quake-reveals-day-jesus-crucifixion-researchers-believe/#.VA-5rk10xjo
www.bibleresearch.org/articles/a11pws.htm
biblehub.com/matthew/27-51.htm
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2014 20:47:43 GMT -5
Faune How do you determine which biblical stories to take literally and which not to? For example, which of the following biblical stories do you take literally and which do you not? Matt10 1 the story of the 6 day creation 2 the story of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt 3 the story of Jonah and the whale 4 the story of the dumb ass speaking 5 the story of the resurrection of Jesus 6 the story of the ascension of Jesus 7 the story of the rich man and Lazerus 8 the story of the flood 9 the story of the five loaves and two fishes 10 the story of the virgin birth Matt10 ~ Point taken! There's a lot of stories found within the Bible in both the O.T. and N.T. that would cause us to ponder their authenticity. Perhaps that's where faith comes in, when we cannot imagine otherwise? Faune, which of those biblical stories which you wonder whether they are authentic, -do you just go ahead and believe them anyway because of faith?
And why? If they don't seem to be logical why must you even try to believe them?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2014 21:12:55 GMT -5
Then my question is which stories in the OT do you decide to take literally and those that you do not take literally?
What are the rules that you use to determine which to take "literally" and which not?
How do you decide the reliability of each?
DMG ~ You put me on the spot here! To be frankly honest with you in answer to your questions above, as I conveyed to Matt10 earlier, I don't feel all these stories which defy human reasoning as being intended by the writers to being taken literally as historical fact. You have to go by the context of the time in which they were written, what was believed and taught at that time, and how much it measures up with today's standards for being a rational occurrence in history.
For instance, I do not buy the story in Matthew's gospel account of dead saints arising out of the ground and walking around town, showing themselves to many after a great earthquake occurred after Jesus' death on the Cross.
I believe that was this story was probably added for effect to the gospel account, as you cannot find it in any of the other gospels.
Also, there is no record of this ever occurring in the annals of the Roman historians from that time.
If there was any truth to the story, it would have made major headlines in the history books back in time, as the Romans were great record keepers. There's also no record of anything like this occurring mentioned in any of Paul's epistles relating to the resurrection account either.
So, the possibility of it being added for "affect" to the gospel story is very probable, IMHO?
In fact, from reading the book by Bart Ehrman, "How Jesus Became God," it helps one to understand the the way of looking at things from first century times and how to determine what was probably feasible and what was not a real occurrence.
I know that may distract from the "inerrancy of the Bible," but I believe you have to take all points into consideration before accepting something as dogmatic truth. JMT
I don't understand why you wouldn't believe that "dead saints arising out of the ground and walking around town!" You believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into the sky!
What is the difference between the two?
How could it be more rational to believe in the one & not the other! Why should it be different whether it is or is not in other gospels, or Paul mentioned it or Roman annals ?
Jesus resurrection didn't make major headlines in the Roman annals either!
I am unable to see how anyone can decide which of all those supernatural incidents can be accurate and what methods a person uses to make those decisions.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 21:34:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 9, 2014 21:38:01 GMT -5
You could look at the O.T. in a symbolic way.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2014 21:49:56 GMT -5
I find that all of it is hard to believe it took place!
Your links are just more Christian apologists. William Dankenbring, biblesearch, -why should I believe them any more than I would any other apologists?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 23:19:33 GMT -5
I find that all of it is hard to believe it took place!
Your links are just more Christian apologists. William Dankenbring, biblesearch, -why should I believe them any more than I would any other apologists?
DMG ~ You have the right to believe what you wish. I tend to believe these writers make some good points in their articles and that's why I shared these links for the readers to review for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 10, 2014 0:29:43 GMT -5
I find that all of it is hard to believe it took place!
Your links are just more Christian apologists. William Dankenbring, biblesearch, -why should I believe them any more than I would any other apologists?
DMG ~ You have the right to believe what you wish. I tend to believe these writers make some good points in their articles and that's why I shared these links for the readers to review for themselves. My question was I don't understand why you don't believe that "dead saints arising out of the ground and walking around town," yet you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into the sky!
What is the difference between the two different risings?
Why would you believe in the one & not the other since they both are so much the same?
How does anyone go about deciding which of all those supernatural incidents really happened?
What are the reasons a person will believe one & not the other?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 10:04:56 GMT -5
it will come to you through devout prayer, reading and contemplation and that doesn't come over night, BTW all those stories are literal... Wally, Do you believe all bible verses should be understood as literal? no
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 10:14:32 GMT -5
it will come to you through devout prayer, reading and contemplation and that doesn't come over night, BTW all those stories are literal... Wally, I have no doubt whatsoever that you BELIEVE these stories to be true however just because you believe them to be true doesn't make them so. I believed in the tooth fairy for many years. However taking what you say at face value, perhaps you would outline the process (including your thought process, any dialog with God and the nature of your contemplation) that led you to the conclusion that No. 4, the story of the dumb ass speaking, is literally true. For example, what were the factors you weighed up? How was your conclusion reached? Did you merely guess? Is there anything you can provide which proves that it isn't merely wishful thinking on your part? What did God reveal to you above and beyond what is contained in the story in the Bible that persuaded you it is true? What language did the dumb ass speak? Did it have an accent or speak in a particular dialect? Did it speak with a lisp or demonstrate any other speech impediments? Was there anything about the story that indicated to you that it might be merely metaphorical rather than literal? What additional information do you have that convinces you that the story is true which if I had access to would convince me? Is it just a case that you WANT it to be true? Come on, convince me that you do not merely believe this story to be literally true but KNOW it to be so. Matt10 all i can tell you is that after reading, praying and contemplation Gods/Holy Spirit still small voice told me those were true...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 10, 2014 13:47:03 GMT -5
Wally, I have no doubt whatsoever that you BELIEVE these stories to be true however just because you believe them to be true doesn't make them so. I believed in the tooth fairy for many years. However taking what you say at face value, perhaps you would outline the process (including your thought process, any dialog with God and the nature of your contemplation) that led you to the conclusion that No. 4, the story of the dumb ass speaking, is literally true. For example, what were the factors you weighed up? How was your conclusion reached? Did you merely guess? Is there anything you can provide which proves that it isn't merely wishful thinking on your part? What did God reveal to you above and beyond what is contained in the story in the Bible that persuaded you it is true? What language did the dumb ass speak? Did it have an accent or speak in a particular dialect? Did it speak with a lisp or demonstrate any other speech impediments? Was there anything about the story that indicated to you that it might be merely metaphorical rather than literal? What additional information do you have that convinces you that the story is true which if I had access to would convince me? Is it just a case that you WANT it to be true? Come on, convince me that you do not merely believe this story to be literally true but KNOW it to be so. Matt10 all i can tell you is that after reading, praying and contemplation Gods/Holy Spirit still small voice told me those were true... Wally, there was once a time that I did the same as you did, "reading, praying and contemplation Gods/Holy Spirit." The voice that I heard afterwards said, "Be sensible, how could that be possible?"
If indeed god made all creatures on the earth , he didn't give the asses the brains to know anything like that nor the power of speech to say anything if they did. So if I want to believe that god has a set of rules that he operates by, how am I to believe something that goes against his own set of rules?(causing an ass too speak)
That certainly wouldn't cause me to sure of anything else that god does!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 13:49:43 GMT -5
all i can tell you is that after reading, praying and contemplation Gods/Holy Spirit still small voice told me those were true... Wally, there was once a time that I did the same as you did, "reading, praying and contemplation Gods/Holy Spirit." The voice that I heard afterwards said, "Be sensible, how could that be possible?"
If indeed god made all creatures on the earth , he didn't give the asses the brains to know anything like that nor the power of speech to say anything if they did. So if I want to believe that god has a set of rules that he operates by, how am I to believe something that goes against his own set of rules?(causing an ass too speak)
That certainly wouldn't cause me to sure of anything else that god does!
Mat_19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Luk_18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 10, 2014 14:33:19 GMT -5
My first thought exactly, Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 10, 2014 14:41:30 GMT -5
Wally, there was once a time that I did the same as you did, "reading, praying and contemplation Gods/Holy Spirit." The voice that I heard afterwards said, "Be sensible, how could that be possible?"
If indeed god made all creatures on the earth , he didn't give the asses the brains to know anything like that nor the power of speech to say anything if they did. So if I want to believe that god has a set of rules that he operates by, how am I to believe something that goes against his own set of rules?(causing an ass too speak)
That certainly wouldn't cause me to sure of anything else that god does!
Mat_19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Luk_18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Perhaps that is the whole point of god keeping people unsure of how he is going to react. It keeps people constantly on edge & worried about whether they are doing the right thing. That keeps them alert & in constant need to "seek" (petition) him for "guidance" since tomorrow he might change some of his rules.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 10, 2014 15:55:06 GMT -5
DMG ~ Perhaps this article will answer your question you put to me about how we can identify God's voice and dealings with our hearts? It's called the "seal of the Holy Spirit" when we accept Jesus Christ into our lives. It becomes our guiding force and "gut feeling" when we dont' have the answers, but trust in faith anyway that God will provide and do what He has promised in His Word. However, belief in God's ability to follow through is the key to our stedfast faith in God.
www.gotquestions.org/Holy-Spirit-seal.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 10, 2014 16:15:26 GMT -5
DMG ~ You have the right to believe what you wish. I tend to believe these writers make some good points in their articles and that's why I shared these links for the readers to review for themselves. My question was I don't understand why you don't believe that "dead saints arising out of the ground and walking around town," yet you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into the sky!
What is the difference between the two different risings?
Why would you believe in the one & not the other since they both are so much the same?
How does anyone go about deciding which of all those supernatural incidents really happened?
What are the reasons a person will believe one & not the other?
DMG ~ Perhaps the answer to this question is that I believe all the copying and re-copying of the books found within the Bible, changes could have made with additions or changing the context of a word due to mistranslation. Making educated guesses as to the meaning of words in scripture was a common practice back in the days of the Early Church Fathers and even St. Augustine admitted to this practice being acceptable in his day. So, I believe you do need to use some scholarly tools to evaluate what may be authentic words and events and what may have been added for effect? Regardless of what changes may have been made down through the centuries, it doesn't distract from the wisdom and instruction you can find within the Bible ~ both the Old and New Testaments. Just because I may think some things were added perhaps to a gospel account or some events didn't really transpire within the O.T. or N.T., doesn't negate my belief in God as a creative force behind the universe. Religions of the world are just one way of connecting with this divine force within the universe, but all of their books were written by man and could easily have been altered along the way.
I will be the first to admit that I don't know for sure whether some of these supernatural events really took place. As Wally said earlier, nothing is impossible with God and that was also many centuries ago. Some historical records did get destroyed during the burning of Rome under Nero, so perhaps some of the evidence that would have been helpful in answering these questions was also destroyed in those fires which were blamed upon the Christians at that time? However, there are references to a man called Christus found within the archives of Roman history which gives some semblance to the historical Jesus.
www.christiancourier.com/articles/623-nero-caesar-and-the-christian-faith
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 10, 2014 16:33:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 10, 2014 22:42:09 GMT -5
Many of us are well aware of the Annals of Tacitcus reference to "Christus" and "Christians"
Faune's above link is to a Christian apologist site; the Christian Courier and the author of the article is Wayne Jackson: Christian apologist.
Below is the passage in the Annals of Tacitcus that is being referred to: from wiki A copy of the second Medicean manuscript of Annals, Book 15, chapter 44, the page with the reference to Christians
The Annals passage (15.44), which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis, follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.[3]
The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876): "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".So what of evidence are we learning from Tacitus? Basically, that this was the first mention outside the NT of the word "Christ" or Christian."
No where in that writing does Tacitcus say anything about the "Resurrection of any Jesus or Christ."
Tacitus refers to a man called "Chistus" executed" by Pontius Pilate. (Many people were executed by Pilate) Tacitus does not say anything about any "resurrection" of the person named "Christus", or for that matter, any other resurrection.
Since the "Resurrection" of Jesus or Christ is supposed to be the very foundation of Christianity and Tacitus does not say anything about any "resurrection," how can what Tacitus writes have that much importance?
It doesn't, -it is only when some Christian apologist like Wayne Jackson attempts to tie it to other non-relevant issues.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 10, 2014 23:18:03 GMT -5
Have you considered the idea that Jesus did not reveal himself to unbelievers after he was resurrected? Thus the scholars and "educated" would not have seen him and likely weren't inclined to believe what his disciples said. Yes, there were some thousands who believed after hearing the apostles, but that would have been a relatively small group and "not many wise... not many mighty... not many noble" were "called." Kind of a "secret sect" maybe? We do know that the gospels report that some guards were paid well to lie about events after his burial. Matt 28:11-15 Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2014 0:08:39 GMT -5
My question was I don't understand why you don't believe that "dead saints arising out of the ground and walking around town," yet you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into the sky!
What is the difference between the two different risings?
Why would you believe in the one & not the other since they both are so much the same?
How does anyone go about deciding which of all those supernatural incidents really happened?
What are the reasons a person will believe one & not the other?
DMG ~ Perhaps the answer to this question is that I believe all the copying and re-copying of the books found within the Bible, changes could have made with additions or changing the context of a word due to mistranslation. Making educated guesses as to the meaning of words in scripture was a common practice back in the days of the Early Church Fathers and even St. Augustine admitted to this practice being acceptable in his day. So, I believe you do need to use some scholarly tools to evaluate what may be authentic words and events and what may have been added for effect? Regardless of what changes may have been made down through the centuries, it doesn't distract from the wisdom and instruction you can find within the Bible ~ both the Old and New Testaments. Just because I may think some things were added perhaps to a gospel account or some events didn't really transpire within the O.T. or N.T., doesn't negate my belief in God as a creative force behind the universe. Religions of the world are just one way of connecting with this divine force within the universe, but all of their books were written by man and could easily have been altered along the way.
I will be the first to admit that I don't know for sure whether some of these supernatural events really took place. As Wally said earlier, nothing is impossible with God and that was also many centuries ago. Some historical records did get destroyed during the burning of Rome under Nero, so perhaps some of the evidence that would have been helpful in answering these questions was also destroyed in those fires which were blamed upon the Christians at that time? However, there are references to a man called Christus found within the archives of Roman history which gives some semblance to the historical Jesus.
www.christiancourier.com/articles/623-nero-caesar-and-the-christian-faith
That is what I don't understand.
If people can "identify God's voice and dealings with their hearts, something you call the "seal of the Holy Spirit," why is it even seem necessary for apologists to attempt to take into account any "historical records" present or destroyed during the burning of Rome under Nero, or at any other time?
Why must you need both?
Isn't that like trying to check on god to see if what he is telling you is correct?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 11, 2014 0:18:31 GMT -5
DMG ~ I believe you are the one who always says "Prove It" to whatever we share along these lines? So, perhaps providing you with some tangible evidence from the archives of Roman history will at least satisfy you that Jesus of Nazareth did at least lived, died, and had a following that continues to this day and his resurrection is the foundation stone upon which Christianity itself is based?
However, do you really think any man could just walk away after enduring this type of torture, as some modern day scholars would have us believe? I think not!
www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/roman-crucifixion-methods-what-did-jesus-endure/
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0027.html
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2014 0:24:48 GMT -5
Have you considered the idea that Jesus did not reveal himself to unbelievers after he was resurrected? Thus the scholars and "educated" would not have seen him and likely weren't inclined to believe what his disciples said. Yes, there were some thousands who believed after hearing the apostles, but that would have been a relatively small group and "not many wise... not many mighty... not many noble" were "called." Kind of a "secret sect" maybe? We do know that the gospels report that some guards were paid well to lie about events after his burial. Matt 28:11-15 Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. Have you considered the idea that Jesus only revealed himself to unbelievers after he was (supposedly) resurrected?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2014 0:39:55 GMT -5
DMG ~ I believe you are the one who always says "Prove It" to whatever we share along these lines? So, perhaps providing you with some tangible evidence from the archives of Roman history will at least satisfy you that Jesus of Nazareth did at least lived, died, and had a following that continues to this day and his resurrection is the foundation stone upon which Christianity itself is based?
However, do you really think any man could just walk away after enduring this type of torture, as some modern day scholars would have us believe? I think not!
www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/roman-crucifixion-methods-what-did-jesus-endure/
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0027.html
Right! but you answered my question about how you identify God's voice by calling it the "seal of the Holy Spirit."
You state you have "faith" that it is.
What I'm asking is why do you need the historical records to prove something if you have "faith?"And you give me just two more Christian apologists links!
And Good Lord! one of the is a Catholic site!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 11, 2014 13:34:39 GMT -5
Have you considered the idea that Jesus did not reveal himself to unbelievers after he was resurrected? Thus the scholars and "educated" would not have seen him and likely weren't inclined to believe what his disciples said. Yes, there were some thousands who believed after hearing the apostles, but that would have been a relatively small group and "not many wise... not many mighty... not many noble" were "called." Kind of a "secret sect" maybe? We do know that the gospels report that some guards were paid well to lie about events after his burial. Matt 28:11-15 Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. Have you considered the idea that Jesus only revealed himself to unbelievers after he was (supposedly) resurrected? I don't think I understand your question. According to the Bible, it could not be so.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 11, 2014 16:37:20 GMT -5
4 the story of the dumb ass speaking To which dumb ass were you referring?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2014 16:48:45 GMT -5
Have you considered the idea that Jesus only revealed himself to unbelievers after he was (supposedly) resurrected? I don't think I understand your question. According to the Bible, it could not be so. Sorry, it wasn't very well stated on my part.
When Jesus first came to the disciples and walked & talked to him, they didn't know who he was, according to the bible.
He had to convince them of who he was. They were unbelievers at first weren't they?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 11, 2014 21:18:32 GMT -5
Yes, they were, but he revealed himself. Revelation is still the key.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 22:27:22 GMT -5
Have you considered the idea that Jesus did not reveal himself to unbelievers after he was resurrected? Thus the scholars and "educated" would not have seen him and likely weren't inclined to believe what his disciples said. Yes, there were some thousands who believed after hearing the apostles, but that would have been a relatively small group and "not many wise... not many mighty... not many noble" were "called." Kind of a "secret sect" maybe? We do know that the gospels report that some guards were paid well to lie about events after his burial. Matt 28:11-15 Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. Have you considered the idea that Jesus only revealed himself to unbelievers after he was (supposedly) resurrected? except he revealed himself to the 500 brethern and as far as we know they were believers... 1Co_15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
|
|