Philosophy Discussion Forums

Shri Ahsan Habib, Dhaka asked: You have said that Jesus did not die on the cross and that, with the help of His disciples, He escaped to India, where he died at the age of 85. So, does it not mean that His resurrection was false?

Swami replied: What do you mean by resurrection? If it means rising from the dead, there is no problem in saying that Jesus was resurrected after three days. There are different versions of the life of Jesus. As per one version, Jesus died on being crucified and rose from the dead again. Then, after His resurrection, He travelled to India and lived for many decades, during which He interacted with many Indian philosophers. Finally, at the age of 85 years, the inevitable death of His mortal body took place and the tomb of Jesus exists in the Himalayas, even today. There is no audio-video recording of the life of Jesus which can be treated to be the accurate record of His life. Whatever most people think is true about the life of Jesus is also one of the versions, which is based on someone’s writings. But it is also claimed that the writings of the disciples of Jesus have been modified by the Church. In that case, all the various versions regarding the life of Jesus have an equal probability of being true. We can accept any version that does not conflict the divinity and spiritual knowledge of Jesus. If the version that Jesus lived in India after His resurrection is bringing Hinduism and Christianity closer, why should it not be accepted?

There is another version that Jesus did not die on the cross due to His miraculous power. Written records mention that when Jesus was thought to be dead on the cross, a Roman soldier pierced a spear into His side, to confirm that He was dead. Since Jesus did not react in pain, He was believed to be dead, after which He was brought down from the cross and moved to the cave. But it is also mentioned that blood gushed out from the injury made by the spear. Blood does not gush out from a dead body, when it is pierced, as per medical science. Hence, some people believe that He was not dead when He was brought down from the cross. He remained in the cave in an inactive state and rose on the third day as stated by Him before His crucifixion. He had spoken of the church being destroyed and rebuilt in three days. The word ‘church’ in His statement denotes His divine body and the reconstruction of the church in three days meant His rising from the dead.

Surviving the crucifixion, remaining in an inactive state for some time and rising on the third day, were all certainly possible for Jesus, who possessed God’s miraculous power. In fact, anything is possible with the miraculous power of the unimaginable God, who had merged with the human body of Jesus. With the miraculous power of God, it is very much possible that Jesus did not die on the cross. It is also possible that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. It is even possible that Jesus died at the age of 85 years and subsequently, began to appear to devotees in an energetic form to devotees all over the world. There is also no reason to reject the version that Jesus, with His living physical body, ascended to heaven. The unimaginable miraculous power of the unimaginable God who had merged with Jesus, allows any of these possibilities to be true. There is no need to condemn any of the above versions or even any other version, as long as the version does not contradict the divine power and divine knowledge of Jesus. There should be no objection to the claim that Jesus died on the cross and rose on the third day also because prior to His crucifixion, Jesus had already resurrected a devoted follower, Lazarus. It proves that Jesus possessed miraculous powers. If He was capable of raising others from the dead, it is not hard to believe that He was capable of rising from the dead Himself.

Whether He died on the cross and rose after three days or He did not die at all, there is no doubt that He was seen by His disciples alive, in physical form, after three days. Thomas even touched the wounds where nails were driven into His hands to confirm that it was indeed Jesus who had risen. There is agreement between all versions, on this point that Jesus was seen alive, in a physical body, on the third day.

The next question is whether Jesus exists even today in a living physical body. In the long time from the resurrection to this day, I do not think there has been any case, other than that of Thomas, when the existence of Jesus in a physical body was confirmed. Whenever Jesus has appeared to anybody, He has only appeared in energetic form and not in human form. The soul enters an energetic body after the natural death of the human body and this is the divine law of God’s creation. At the time of the crucifixion, Jesus was about 32 years old. After the resurrection, He probably lived in the physical body upto the age of 85 years. Then, as per the divine law of creation, the mortal body died and He was buried in the tomb, which is seen even today in the Himalayas.

Interestingly, there are records of Jesus being with His parents only upto about sixteen years. Then He left home and returned only when He was about thirty years old. In this period of fourteen years, He did a lot of penance in association with several sages in the Himalayas. The Hindu scripture, Bhaviśya Purāṇam, speaks about the arrival of Jesus in India after His resurrection. In this scripture, Jesus says to king Śālivāhana “I am the Son of the Lord and I was born to an unmarried woman. I have propagated spiritual knowledge in a foreign country…”. (Īśa putraṃ ca māṃ viddhi, kumārī garbha sambhavam, mlecchadharmasya vaktāram…).

You can find the influence of Hindu philosophies on the spiritual knowledge preached by Jesus, which is in line with His long stay in India. Jesus said that He is the Truth and Light, which means that He is God Himself. This is the philosophy of monism (Advaita). Jesus said that He is Son of God and this concept belongs to the philosophy called qualified monism (Viśiṣṭa Advaita), which is an intermediate stage between monism and dualism. Jesus also said that He is the messenger of God, which indicates perfect dualism (Dvaita). In the philosophy of dualism, the soul is different from God and is said to be a servant of God. But the soul referred to in the philosophy of dualism is not an ordinary worldly human being. The servant or messenger of God stands at a very high level of spiritual progress, far above ordinary souls. These three philosophies existed in the Veda and corresponding statements can be found in the Veda. The philosophy of Jesus, which matches with the three philosophies of the Hindu Vedic religion is reflected in the three famous statements of Jesus: (1) I am in the Light (dualism), (2) The Light is in Me (qualified monism, which is an intermediate stage between dualism and monism) and (3) I am the Light (monism).

| Shri Dattaswami | Shalivaahana Iishaputtram cha maam viddhi, kumarii garbhasambhavam, mlecchadharmasya vaktaaram

From a philosophical viewpoint, I don't think Jesus' resurrection CAN be false.

If you're going to take seriously the story of Jesus being resurrected, you're forced to take seriously the resurrection of at least 10 people identified in the same Bible, both in the OT and the NT, plus another substantial size of the dead population in Palestine, as claimed in the gospels. Remember that, as the story goes, when Jesus died, there was an earthquake and people came out of their graves, having resurrected. The population estimates of 1st century Palestine range from 1 to 6 million, so you can guess they must have had a good amount of graves, and a good bunch of resurrected folks walking in Palestine after Jesus supposedly died. I picture a scene of the Walking Dead.

What can you make of all these resurrections? I can't tell.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 11:46 am If you're going to take seriously the story of Jesus being resurrected, you're forced to take seriously the resurrection of at least 10 people identified in the same Bible, both in the OT and the NT, plus another substantial size of the dead population in Palestine, as claimed in the gospels. Remember that, as the story goes, when Jesus died, there was an earthquake and people came out of their graves, having resurrected. The population estimates of 1st century Palestine range from 1 to 6 million, so you can guess they must have had a good amount of graves, and a good bunch of resurrected folks walking in Palestine after Jesus supposedly died. I picture a scene of the Walking Dead.

What can you make of all these resurrections? I can't tell.

Yeah but the Resurrection of Jesus makes the nicest story and includes a lot of good things. People aren't resurrected any more than a million impossible things that religions have preached over the ages. So what? People enjoy it. It comforts them. The story teaches a lot of good things. Billions of people use it as a foundational basis for their ethics. Is there really a reason to rain on their parade?

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 6:03 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 11:46 am If you're going to take seriously the story of Jesus being resurrected, you're forced to take seriously the resurrection of at least 10 people identified in the same Bible, both in the OT and the NT, plus another substantial size of the dead population in Palestine, as claimed in the gospels. Remember that, as the story goes, when Jesus died, there was an earthquake and people came out of their graves, having resurrected. The population estimates of 1st century Palestine range from 1 to 6 million, so you can guess they must have had a good amount of graves, and a good bunch of resurrected folks walking in Palestine after Jesus supposedly died. I picture a scene of the Walking Dead.

What can you make of all these resurrections? I can't tell.

Yeah but the Resurrection of Jesus makes the nicest story and includes a lot of good things. People aren't resurrected any more than a million impossible things that religions have preached over the ages. So what? People enjoy it. It comforts them. The story teaches a lot of good things. Billions of people use it as a foundational basis for their ethics. Is there really a reason to rain on their parade?

Well, even though it is the same story and foundational ethics that allow slavery, murder, rape, incest, etc., I have no special reason to rain on their parade. I just keep questioning whether they have a good reason to rain on other people's parades.

dattaswami wrote: ↑November 25th, 2022, 7:19 am
Shri Ahsan Habib, Dhaka asked: You have said that Jesus did not die on the cross and that, with the help of His disciples, He escaped to India, where he died at the age of 85. So, does it not mean that His resurrection was false?

Swami replied: What do you mean by resurrection? If it means rising from the dead, there is no problem in saying that Jesus was resurrected after three days. There are different versions of the life of Jesus. As per one version, Jesus died on being crucified and rose from the dead again. Then, after His resurrection, He travelled to India and lived for many decades, during which He interacted with many Indian philosophers. Finally, at the age of 85 years, the inevitable death of His mortal body took place and the tomb of Jesus exists in the Himalayas, even today. There is no audio-video recording of the life of Jesus which can be treated to be the accurate record of His life. Whatever most people think is true about the life of Jesus is also one of the versions, which is based on someone’s writings. But it is also claimed that the writings of the disciples of Jesus have been modified by the Church. In that case, all the various versions regarding the life of Jesus have an equal probability of being true. We can accept any version that does not conflict the divinity and spiritual knowledge of Jesus. If the version that Jesus lived in India after His resurrection is bringing Hinduism and Christianity closer, why should it not be accepted?

There is another version that Jesus did not die on the cross due to His miraculous power. Written records mention that when Jesus was thought to be dead on the cross, a Roman soldier pierced a spear into His side, to confirm that He was dead. Since Jesus did not react in pain, He was believed to be dead, after which He was brought down from the cross and moved to the cave. But it is also mentioned that blood gushed out from the injury made by the spear. Blood does not gush out from a dead body, when it is pierced, as per medical science. Hence, some people believe that He was not dead when He was brought down from the cross. He remained in the cave in an inactive state and rose on the third day as stated by Him before His crucifixion. He had spoken of the church being destroyed and rebuilt in three days. The word ‘church’ in His statement denotes His divine body and the reconstruction of the church in three days meant His rising from the dead.

Surviving the crucifixion, remaining in an inactive state for some time and rising on the third day, were all certainly possible for Jesus, who possessed God’s miraculous power. In fact, anything is possible with the miraculous power of the unimaginable God, who had merged with the human body of Jesus. With the miraculous power of God, it is very much possible that Jesus did not die on the cross. It is also possible that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. It is even possible that Jesus died at the age of 85 years and subsequently, began to appear to devotees in an energetic form to devotees all over the world. There is also no reason to reject the version that Jesus, with His living physical body, ascended to heaven. The unimaginable miraculous power of the unimaginable God who had merged with Jesus, allows any of these possibilities to be true. There is no need to condemn any of the above versions or even any other version, as long as the version does not contradict the divine power and divine knowledge of Jesus. There should be no objection to the claim that Jesus died on the cross and rose on the third day also because prior to His crucifixion, Jesus had already resurrected a devoted follower, Lazarus. It proves that Jesus possessed miraculous powers. If He was capable of raising others from the dead, it is not hard to believe that He was capable of rising from the dead Himself.

Whether He died on the cross and rose after three days or He did not die at all, there is no doubt that He was seen by His disciples alive, in physical form, after three days. Thomas even touched the wounds where nails were driven into His hands to confirm that it was indeed Jesus who had risen. There is agreement between all versions, on this point that Jesus was seen alive, in a physical body, on the third day.

The next question is whether Jesus exists even today in a living physical body. In the long time from the resurrection to this day, I do not think there has been any case, other than that of Thomas, when the existence of Jesus in a physical body was confirmed. Whenever Jesus has appeared to anybody, He has only appeared in energetic form and not in human form. The soul enters an energetic body after the natural death of the human body and this is the divine law of God’s creation. At the time of the crucifixion, Jesus was about 32 years old. After the resurrection, He probably lived in the physical body upto the age of 85 years. Then, as per the divine law of creation, the mortal body died and He was buried in the tomb, which is seen even today in the Himalayas.

Interestingly, there are records of Jesus being with His parents only upto about sixteen years. Then He left home and returned only when He was about thirty years old. In this period of fourteen years, He did a lot of penance in association with several sages in the Himalayas. The Hindu scripture, Bhaviśya Purāṇam, speaks about the arrival of Jesus in India after His resurrection. In this scripture, Jesus says to king Śālivāhana “I am the Son of the Lord and I was born to an unmarried woman. I have propagated spiritual knowledge in a foreign country…”. (Īśa putraṃ ca māṃ viddhi, kumārī garbha sambhavam, mlecchadharmasya vaktāram…).

You can find the influence of Hindu philosophies on the spiritual knowledge preached by Jesus, which is in line with His long stay in India. Jesus said that He is the Truth and Light, which means that He is God Himself. This is the philosophy of monism (Advaita). Jesus said that He is Son of God and this concept belongs to the philosophy called qualified monism (Viśiṣṭa Advaita), which is an intermediate stage between monism and dualism. Jesus also said that He is the messenger of God, which indicates perfect dualism (Dvaita). In the philosophy of dualism, the soul is different from God and is said to be a servant of God. But the soul referred to in the philosophy of dualism is not an ordinary worldly human being. The servant or messenger of God stands at a very high level of spiritual progress, far above ordinary souls. These three philosophies existed in the Veda and corresponding statements can be found in the Veda. The philosophy of Jesus, which matches with the three philosophies of the Hindu Vedic religion is reflected in the three famous statements of Jesus: (1) I am in the Light (dualism), (2) The Light is in Me (qualified monism, which is an intermediate stage between dualism and monism) and (3) I am the Light (monism).

| Shri Dattaswami | Shalivaahana Iishaputtram cha maam viddhi, kumarii garbhasambhavam, mlecchadharmasya vaktaaram

The short answer is no. It's not false. Just like any other history book, there's no reason to think that it's false. Otherwise, one would have to prove why there are things considered logically impossible yet still exist. You know, like quantum observation/phenomena, conscious existence, time, and other metaphysical experiences.....

The resurrection cannot be demonstrated to be false. It was demonstrated to be true for those who claimed to witness it. We either accept their witness because we believe in the integrity of the eyewitnesses, or we deny it because we deny miracles are even possible.

We either accept the resurrection because we want to believe in it, or we deny it because we don't.

Let's make things clear: we are not told to believe in eyewitnesses of the supposed resurrection of Jesus, we are told to believe in the accounts of unknown writers that, from hearsay, make claims about people witnessing such event 50 years before. In biblical scholarship, no one knows who were the four writers selected among dozens by the early Church that made into the canonical gospels, nor what relation they had with the supposed witnesses. Add to that the fact that it is not possible to reconcile the stories about the resurrection from the 4 gospels: they show different times, events and participants.

Charlemagne wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 9:49 pm The resurrection cannot be demonstrated to be false. It was demonstrated to be true for those who claimed to witness it. We either accept their witness because we believe in the integrity of the eyewitnesses, or we deny it because we deny miracles are even possible.

We either accept the resurrection because we want to believe in it, or we deny it because we don't.

Indeed. Just like any other historic figure...

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 1:59 pm Let's make things clear: we are not told to believe in eyewitnesses of the supposed resurrection of Jesus, we are told to believe in the accounts of unknown writers that, from hearsay, make claims about people witnessing such event 50 years before. In biblical scholarship, no one knows who were the four writers selected among dozens by the early Church that made into the canonical gospels, nor what relation they had with the supposed witnesses. Add to that the fact that it is not possible to reconcile the stories about the resurrection from the 4 gospels: they show different times, events and participants.

Let's make things abundantly clear. Whatever disputes there are about the Gospel versions of the Resurrection, we also have St. Paul, who knew the apostles and was certainly aware of Peter's witness and the witness of others.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you were saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 8:46 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 6:03 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 11:46 am If you're going to take seriously the story of Jesus being resurrected, you're forced to take seriously the resurrection of at least 10 people identified in the same Bible, both in the OT and the NT, plus another substantial size of the dead population in Palestine, as claimed in the gospels. Remember that, as the story goes, when Jesus died, there was an earthquake and people came out of their graves, having resurrected. The population estimates of 1st century Palestine range from 1 to 6 million, so you can guess they must have had a good amount of graves, and a good bunch of resurrected folks walking in Palestine after Jesus supposedly died. I picture a scene of the Walking Dead.

What can you make of all these resurrections? I can't tell.

Yeah but the Resurrection of Jesus makes the nicest story and includes a lot of good things. People aren't resurrected any more than a million impossible things that religions have preached over the ages. So what? People enjoy it. It comforts them. The story teaches a lot of good things. Billions of people use it as a foundational basis for their ethics. Is there really a reason to rain on their parade?

Well, even though it is the same story and foundational ethics that allow slavery, murder, rape, incest, etc., I have no special reason to rain on their parade. I just keep questioning whether they have a good reason to rain on other people's parades.

No, sorry, it's just plain wrong to blame the story of Jesus' resurrection on all the faults of religions. Jesus is a VERY different story to others. It's very unusual in that the figure whose identity would normally be king or lawgiver is a martyr. Also, Jesus is not just meant to be a martyr for his own people. His martyrdom is meant to make people OUTSIDE the tribe "chosen" like those inside the tribe - benefitting from the tribe's covenant with God.

Finally, Jesus is very unusual, almost unique, in that He instructs other people that they should offer themselves as martyrs as well - that they should "turn the other cheek". And remember that this is coming from the Son of God - the violent, jealous God of the Torah. The "turn the other cheek" ethic has obviously inspired non-violent movements that have effected real change.

As an atheist I have often wished that atheists made a lot more effort to create an explicitly ethical movement instead of just being "freethinkers" who call ******** on everybody else's ethics.

First of all, Paul is not a witness to any resurrection, nor he ever met the character Jesus in person (interestingly, even though it is said that he hung out with actual witnesses, he never mentions anything said by Jesus, nor events in his life, nothing as appears in the gospels).

Now, Paul's writing were first and they came around 20-25 years after the resurrection events supposedly happened. There's no account in them of these events as embellished as they appear in the gospels, which were written even decades later after Paul's letters. There's nothing about Peter (Cephas) telling him anything as a direct witness. It is even disputable that this Peter is the same Simon Peter, the fisherman that supposedly hung out with Jesus. How come Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve, wasn't Peter among the twelve?

In any case, there's no direct relation between Paul's narrative and the 4 gospels. The accounts in the gospels talk about a bodily resurrection, while Paul talks about a spiritual resurrection.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 6:33 pm First of all, Paul is not a witness to any resurrection, nor he ever met the character Jesus in person (interestingly, even though it is said that he hung out with actual witnesses, he never mentions anything said by Jesus, nor events in his life, nothing as appears in the gospels).

Now, Paul's writing were first and they came around 20-25 years after the resurrection events supposedly happened. There's no account in them of these events as embellished as they appear in the gospels, which were written even decades later after Paul's letters. There's nothing about Peter (Cephas) telling him anything as a direct witness. It is even disputable that this Peter is the same Simon Peter, the fisherman that supposedly hung out with Jesus. How come Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve, wasn't Peter among the twelve?

In any case, there's no direct relation between Paul's narrative and the 4 gospels. The accounts in the gospels talk about a bodily resurrection, while Paul talks about a spiritual resurrection.

Seriously? You're going to argue that timeline of a "resurrection"? The Gospels aren't a true crime narrative. I mean, for example, did Jesus actually walk all the "Stations of the Cross"? Who cares? It's all over churches all over the world, depicted in beautiful and horrifying art. It's a social truth, not a fact in evidence. Jesus stands in for a lot of people who were crucified and their grieving families and the leaders of their communities who were cowed into submission.

Dlaw wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 7:11 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 6:33 pm First of all, Paul is not a witness to any resurrection, nor he ever met the character Jesus in person (interestingly, even though it is said that he hung out with actual witnesses, he never mentions anything said by Jesus, nor events in his life, nothing as appears in the gospels).

Now, Paul's writing were first and they came around 20-25 years after the resurrection events supposedly happened. There's no account in them of these events as embellished as they appear in the gospels, which were written even decades later after Paul's letters. There's nothing about Peter (Cephas) telling him anything as a direct witness. It is even disputable that this Peter is the same Simon Peter, the fisherman that supposedly hung out with Jesus. How come Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve, wasn't Peter among the twelve?

In any case, there's no direct relation between Paul's narrative and the 4 gospels. The accounts in the gospels talk about a bodily resurrection, while Paul talks about a spiritual resurrection.

Seriously? You're going to argue that timeline of a "resurrection"? The Gospels aren't a true crime narrative. I mean, for example, did Jesus actually walk all the "Stations of the Cross"? Who cares? It's all over churches all over the world, depicted in beautiful and horrifying art. It's a social truth, not a fact in evidence. Jesus stands in for a lot of people who were crucified and their grieving families and the leaders of their communities who were cowed into submission.

It would appear you have been reading a lot of atheistic propaganda that debunks the gospels and St. Paul.

But it's abundantly clear to anyone willing to listen, that Peter and Paul knew each other. Paul in his first years as a Christian would necessarily have learned from Peter and others about the teachings and the resurrection of Jesus before he was accepted as the thirteenth apostle. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke chronicles the missionary works of Peter and Paul and notes their meeting at the Council of Jerusalem.

Charlemagne wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 9:46 pm

Dlaw wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 7:11 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 6:33 pm First of all, Paul is not a witness to any resurrection, nor he ever met the character Jesus in person (interestingly, even though it is said that he hung out with actual witnesses, he never mentions anything said by Jesus, nor events in his life, nothing as appears in the gospels).

Now, Paul's writing were first and they came around 20-25 years after the resurrection events supposedly happened. There's no account in them of these events as embellished as they appear in the gospels, which were written even decades later after Paul's letters. There's nothing about Peter (Cephas) telling him anything as a direct witness. It is even disputable that this Peter is the same Simon Peter, the fisherman that supposedly hung out with Jesus. How come Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve, wasn't Peter among the twelve?

In any case, there's no direct relation between Paul's narrative and the 4 gospels. The accounts in the gospels talk about a bodily resurrection, while Paul talks about a spiritual resurrection.

Seriously? You're going to argue that timeline of a "resurrection"? The Gospels aren't a true crime narrative. I mean, for example, did Jesus actually walk all the "Stations of the Cross"? Who cares? It's all over churches all over the world, depicted in beautiful and horrifying art. It's a social truth, not a fact in evidence. Jesus stands in for a lot of people who were crucified and their grieving families and the leaders of their communities who were cowed into submission.

It would appear you have been reading a lot of atheistic propaganda that debunks the gospels and St. Paul.

Did you read what I wrote? I take the Gospels at face value. It makes no sense to "debunk" a Scripture. Are the Gospels factual? Well, not provably, but who cares?

Charlemagne wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 9:46 pmBut it's abundantly clear to anyone willing to listen, that Peter and Paul knew each other. Paul in his first years as a Christian would necessarily have learned from Peter and others about the teachings and the resurrection of Jesus before he was accepted as the thirteenth apostle. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke chronicles the missionary works of Peter and Paul and notes their meeting at the Council of Jerusalem.

Again, I think you're missing the point if you're arguing with atheists on the historical accuracy of the Gospels. If we were in a theological debate as fellow Christians I would say that the point you're making is kind of trivial.