Claims about verifiable phenomena or relatively mundane events that do not contradict the laws of physics may be a type of evidence, though even so eyewitness accounts (and even polls, which is why there’s the margin of error) are considered unreliable. But claims about the supernatural are all entirely subjective - unless you think schizophrenics who believe they’re Napoleon constitutes evidence that Napoleon’s spirit is taking over people’s bodies.
No, scientifically speaking, claims are no evidence at all. They are not empirical, and no inferences can be made from them. Scientific evidence has to demonstrate something about physical reality. Claims contain no information. They are not scientific evidence and are never presented as such.
They would all saye the person had a psychotic experience. Like I said, a psychotic experience does not have to mean a person has any underlying disorder, but if Paul had hallucinations of Jesus, he had psychotic experiences. I would also argue that his Christology and his belief that his experiences were real were indications of delusion and possible indications of some kind of underlying psychiatric disorder.
If someone says now that Jesus (or Zeus or the angel Gabriel) is talking to them, we have no problem saying those people are disordered, so I don’t see why we should regard Paul as any different than a guy on a bus talking into a paper bag.
Not exactly. What makes it a break with reality is believing the hallucination in spite of evidence or knowledge it isn’t true. People do have hallucinations fairly often without believing them; a classic would be hearing a telephone in the shower, or hypnogogic hallucinations. People who lose significant eyesight or hearing with age often hallucinate; the brain starts trying to fit in the missing details. They just don’t talk about it much because they don’t want people to think they are crazy or senile - and they hide it so well because they aren’t crazy or senile.
Thanks for having the decency to admit you were wrong in classifying Paul as “a psychotic.”
That’s extremely big of you and it’s not often that people admit to making a mistake on forums like this.
Except Dio is incorrect because he specifically labelled Paul “a psychotic” though, to his credit, he has since taken back his comment.
I Corinthians 15: 3,4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures.
Diogenes the Cynic,
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. As far as I am concerned, this means that St. Paul believed in a physical resurrection.
Now there is some controversy over whether Jesus was buried in a tomb at all. Shelby Spong and others have argued that like many crucifixion victims Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs, or thrown into a garbage pit.
Nevertheless, St. Paul, writing within two decades of the crucifixion, states that Jesus was buried, and that he rose on the third day. This does not prove that there was a physical resurrection. It does not prove that Jesus was the Son of God. It very strongly does indicate that St. Paul, who talked to people who knew Jesus before the crucifixion, and who claimed to have seen him afterwards, believed in a physical resurrection, like that described in the gospels.
If you want the result of an autopsy following the Crucifixion, and the result of a medical exam following the Resurrection including a clean bill of health, I can’t help you. 
Nope-he didn’t ask for those things. Got anything along the lines of what he did ask for?
Diogenes the Cynic,
You may recall the NPR documentary “The Tomb of Jesus,” that was shown four years ago. This investigated claims that the tomb of Jesus had been discovered, along with his ossuary.
The consensus seems to be that the claims were implausible.
Nevertheless, this kind of discovery is always possible in the future. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, many thought that they included eye witness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. Now this belief has been discarded, although some of the scrolls have more of a Christian flavor to them than either the Old Testament, or the Apocrypha.
About five to ten percent of inhabitants of the Roman Empire could read and write. It is always possible that a contemporary, first person account of Jesus will be discovered. Perhaps someone will find a letter written by an officer in the Roman Army to his wife in Italy.
That would end the argument, don’t you agree?
You can say that all you want, but its not what the texts says.
[quote]
Now there is some controversy over whether Jesus was buried in a tomb at all. Shelby Spong and others have argued that like many crucifixion victims Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs, or thrown into a garbage pit.[/quite]
True. The empty tomb story does not appear in the earliest layers of Christian literature. Paul shows no awareness of it, and it’s historically very implausible.
The question is what Paul meant by “risen.” he gives no indication that he thinks this “rising” was physical.
Paul says nothing about a physical resurrection.
He also claims that he did not get his info from other apostles, but from Jesus, He says, in fact, that he never even met any disciples until three years after his conversion. According to Paul, the other apostles didn’t say Jesus had appeared to them, only the voices in his head told him that.
So you’re admitting you can’t falsify the null? you’re admitting you can’t provide any evidence or argument to believe Jesus’ dead body came back to life?
I Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas; then of the twelve.
There is no mention here of “voices in his head.” I think he learned of those appearances by talking to Cephas, and the twelve. I admit I am somewhat confused by separating Cephas from the twelve. I believe that Cephas is St. Peter, and that he is one of the twelve.
Those claims were never taken seriously by any scholars of any consequence.
Great. When something like surfaces, it will be an awesome find. It still won’t be evidence for a physical resurrection, of course, but it might provide us with some data about what the disciples actually believed about him.
Unfortunately, such a hypothetical find, as great as it would be (and I would love a find like that), is of no value to the discussion at hand.
It certainly would. I’m not holding my breath, though.
I have already presented evidence from St. Paul’s writings. My point it that it cannot be proven, but then again it is difficult to prove that anything that happened two thousand years ago really happened.
If what was asked for was evidence of what Paul believed, it would count-but that wasn’t what was asked for, was it?
Galatians 1:11-20
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15**But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Contacts at Jerusalem
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,[a] and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20**
According to Paul, he got his info only from Jesus, and he did not speak to any disciples until three years after his conversion.
Paul’s claims are not evidence for a physical resurrection - hell, they’re not even evidence that Paul himself believed in a physical resurrection
The point that other ancient claims can’t be proven is not exactly evidence either, especially since this particular claim is prima facie impossible.