Originally posted by The Pixie
View Post
The only evidence (so called) that he can provide in support of his position is "Paul saw Christ in a vision therefore everyone who saw Christ saw him in a vision." The claim is irrational ... "I saw Richard Dawkins on television, therefore everyone who saw Richard Dawkins saw him on television." Even if his argument had a skerrick of validity, it would fail to support the contention that Christ was not raised bodily from the dead.
Even if he could demonstrate that the words don't mean what they say, there remains the fact that Paul's experience was not only post resurrection but post ascension. At least some of the other experiences were post resurrection and pre-ascension. Paul saw the resurrected Christ in heaven, others saw the resurrected Christ on Earth (and the TV analogy holds even more thoroughly because of it). But that evidence will be disallowed because Paul doesn't mention them in his letters to people who are well familiar with the basics. It is as if people are expected to rehash basic information that they know is well familiar to their audience in letters that are not relevant to the basics.
Comment