Featured The Gospel of Mark successfully reconciles 2 different versions of the Miracle of Loaves and Fishes

[Scooter]

I understand grief hallucinations may be a real thing, but I can’t believe over 500 people at once imagined seeing a risen Jesus. Has there ever been a documented case where hundreds of people had the same hallucination at the same time? If not, I wonder upon what you base your hypothesis.

I think this actually works against the case for Christianity. It’s 1st Corinthians, chapter 15, toward the beginning.

And it’s sparse.

It says 500 persons, many of these brothers and sisters still living, and that’s all it says on the 500. And it also lists some other persons such as the 12 disciples who were supposed to have seen Jesus after Resurrection.

I asked for documented case(s) of grief hallucination being experienced by hundreds of people at the same time seeing the same thing. What you offered is a documented case of more than 500 people witnessing the risen Jesus at once. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible nor from contemporaneous secular sources that suggest this was a hallucination. Unless you can offer something to substaniate your claim, you're being somewhat intellectually dishonest. Pulling a thought out of thin air, based on one's personal bias is not evidence. Now, you are free to believe all these folks hallucinated if you so choose, but unless you can present evidence to support your position, your position has no validity.

If Paul had been enthused about the more than 500, he would have told us where he had heard about it.

Conclusion: Paul wasn’t enthused.

Again, this is pure conjecture on your part. After meeting the risen Savior, Paul spent the remainder of his life telling others about Jesus. Paul suffered more than any other of the apostles recorded in the Bible, and yet he continued to preach about Jesus. Paul was enthused about salvation offered by faith in Christ so much that it eventually cost him his life. Just because you assume Paul should have been more enthusiastic about an event you think he should have been, does not mean the event did not happen. Your conclusion is therefore silly.

 

[Scooter]

It is possible for the early Church Fathers to have been wrong. What determines that is evidence. A scenario where we might know more later on is if more evidence is found later on that the Church Fathers weren't aware of.

I would agree with this. But has there been any newly discovered evidence that would disprove the positions of the early church fathers?

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

. . . more than 500 people witnessing the risen Jesus at once. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible nor from contemporaneous secular sources that suggest this was a hallucination. . .

I don’t think this incident happened at all.

 

[Scooter]

. . . more than 500 people witnessing the risen Jesus at once. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible nor from contemporaneous secular sources that suggest this was a hallucination. . .

I don’t think this incident happened at all.

And you are perfectly entitled not to believe it. But I don’t believe you are entitled to claim it was grief hallucinations without some type of evidence to support your claim.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Unless you can offer something to substaniate your claim, you're being somewhat intellectually dishonest. Pulling a thought out of thin air, based on one's personal bias is not evidence.

Moderator Comment:
To keep things civil here, I don't allow negative personal comments about a person even if it is true (e.g. they are intellectually dishonest or worse). Feel free to criticize someone's view but not the person themself.