Please give me so-called "proof" of Jesus or God.

In 11:23f, Paul introduces the one scene in all of his letters which seems to lift a curtain upon an incident in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He tells the Corinthians this story, in order to dissuade them from squabbling over the food and drink at their community’s fellowship meal:23 For I received from the Lord what also I delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was delivered up
(most translations choose to render this betrayed
or arrested: see below),
took bread,
24 and having given thanks broke (it) and said:
this is my body, which is for you,
do this in remembrance of me.
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup...That opening line is very like the one we examined in 1 Corinthians 15:3, only here the ideas are reversed. Now the received idea is the primary one and governs what follows. Are we to allot to this use of paralambano the same meaning as the one arrived at for 15:3? There are several logical and compelling reasons why we should.Although the words of Jesus at the establishment of the Eucharist may not be part of Paul’s fundamental gospel, we may well suspect that anything he preaches about the Christ would fall within the spirit of Galatians 1:11-12, Paul’s firm declaration that he has received his message from no man. Certainly, his use of paralambano to refer to a revelation a few chapters later, in 15:3, does lend weight to the validity of such an interpretation here. But there are more immediate considerations we can draw on.First, Paul plainly says that he received this from the Lord. If he is speaking of a passed on tradition from other men, Paul’s words are on the surface illogical, even a falsehood. If other apostles gave him this information, presumably the ones who were present at such a scene, then he did not get it from the Lord. By clearly stressing that the Lord was the source of his information, Paul is denying any intermediate human step. Moreover, if such traditions about a Last Supper (Paul, alone in the New Testament, calls it the Lord’s Supper) were circulating through Christian circles, including Corinth, by means of oral transmission and general knowledge, and were in fact the source of Paul’s own familiarity with them, what kind of impression would Paul be giving his readers if he seemed to be claiming that he knew of these words through some personal revelation?Perhaps recognizing all this, scholars have long tried to interpret the opening of verse 23 in a different way. We might call it the battle of the prepositions.For I received from the Lord (apo tou kuriou) . . .In the Greek of the time, when someone speaks of information received from another as the immediate, direct source, the preposition para is most often used. On the other hand, the preposition apo is most often used to signify the remote, or ultimate source of a piece of information. Thus Paul, they say, if he had meant to say that Jesus had delivered this information to him personally, would have used para. As it is, in using apo, he is referring to Jesus as the originator of these words, as if to say, these words came ultimately from the Lord himself.Unfortunately for this argument, these different usages were not strict. (See Moulton: A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1 Prolegomena, p. 237.) Even the New Testament contains apo used in the opposite sense (Colossians 1:17, as you learned from Epaphras, and Matthew 11:29, learn from me.) Thus, there was no guarantee that the Corinthians would have understood such a remote antecedent meaning, or that Paul intended it.Besides, if Jesus were being referred to only in the sense that he is the ultimate source of the words, this gives Paul’s statement another less than logical cast. If he is going to go on to say that Jesus spoke certain words, why preface it with a separate statement which identifies Jesus as the source of these words? This is at best a very awkward redundancy.Thus, we must conclude that Paul is saying what the words seem to make him say: that this scene, which he has previously imparted to his readers, was the product of a private vision or inspiration coming from the heavenly Jesus. Once this is acknowledged, the way is open to regarding the scene Paul creates as a myth attached to the spiritual Christ, a myth designed to explain (as many myths do) the origins of a practice within the community, or at least, the origin of the significance that has now been attached to an older practice. To the meal of fellowship which is undoubtedly derived from the traditional Jewish thanksgiving meal, in a version (like the so-called messianic banquet) which has apocalyptic overtones (see 11:26), Paul has overlaid a sacramental significance based on a new interpretation of the meaning of the traditional bread and cup. This meaning is grounded in a mythical scene which may be Paul’s own invention, derived from a perceived personal revelation. The Gospel versions would probably ultimately be traced back to him. (We should also note that the establishment of the Eucharist is missing in other places in the rest of the early Christian record where we would expect to find it, such as the eucharistic prayers in the Didache, chapters 9 and 10, and in Hebrews 9:15-22 and even 7:1-3: see Supplementary Article No. 9: A Sacrifice in Heaven.)But this sacred meal and the type of sacramentalism it entails, are not of Jewish derivation. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Deityof any godwould have been a repugnant and blasphemous concept to any observant Jew, making it certain that an historical Jesus could never have established such a rite or foisted it upon his followers (see Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism, p. 99). Instead, Paul’s sacramental myth is strongly Greek flavored, and his Lord’s Supper is very close to the sacred meals of the Greek cultic mysteries, down to the word he uses, deipnon.Such a meal signified the union of the initiates with the god of the cult’s worship, and a sharing in his nature and saving actusually an overcoming of death in some way. We know of myths that were attached to such cultic meals. The Sabazius cult observed a communal supper which symbolized the heavenly banquet of the blessed which the initiates could look forward to after death. The cult of Mithras had an origin myth which explained where its sacred meal had come from. After Mithras had slain the bull (the ‘salvific act’ in Mithraism), he and the sun god Helios sealed a covenant by dining together on loaves of breadsome say on the meat of the bull himselfand drinking from cups which contained water and wine mixed. The goddess Isis was looked upon as having personally established the mystery rites associated with her, and this included a sacred meal. None of these gods and their activities were regarded as based in identifiable history

Translators have a tendency to use the terms arrested or betrayed (the latter alluding to Judas) in rendering paradidomi in this part of the verse. This, I would suggest, is governed by Gospel preconceptions. The verb means, in its basic sense, to hand over or deliver up and is a technical term in the context of justice or martyrdom. In the Gospel story it can take on the meaning of arrest or betrayal (as in Mark 14:21), but in Paul there is no need to see it this way. He uses the same verb in Romans 8:32: He (God) did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. Here it can hardly imply betrayal or arrest. In Ephesians 5:2 and 25 it is Christ who gave himself up on your behalf. No thought of Judas or of an arrest on Passover eve would be present here.We might also note that the Greek shows a curious use of tenses. The verb was handed over (paredidoto) is in the imperfect, which literally makes the meaning on the night he was being delivered up. This implies that the act of surrender was going on all through the Supper! It seems that Paul could hardly have had the Gospel scene in mind, and scholars who have noted this (e.g., Robertson and Plummer, International Critical Commentary, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.243) suggest that Paul is taking a broader meaning, perhaps of surrender by the Father as in the Romans passage. Curious, indeed.ConclusionWhen we allow Paul to speak for himself, rather than impose upon him the narrative world of the evangelists, we find a consistent picture throughout the letters. The governing force in his life’s work, as it is with all the competing apostles who roam the byways of the empire preaching the divine Christ, is the power of God’s Spirit, manifested through revelation and a study of scripture. No historical man who had recently begun the movement hovers in the background of Paul’s thought. His gospel comes from God, and its subject matter is the Christ, the intermediary Son who is the hallmark of the religious philosophy of the age.

A second observation needs to be made about the list of appearances. There is nothing to suggest that, in Paul’s mind, they were not all of the same nature. And since neither Paul himself, nor anyone on his behalf down to the present day, has ever claimed that his seeing of the Christ was anything but a vision of a spiritual figure, this has to imply that Paul regards the other appearances as being in the same category. In other words, they were all revelatory experiences; none were thought of as encounters with a bodily-risen Jesus of Nazareth. (This has recently been recognized by modern liberal scholars such as the Jesus Seminar and John Shelby Spong.)Indeed, the language Paul uses implies this very meaning. Even the sense of vision may be too strong. In a study of the meaning of ophthe here, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. V, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception. In other words, the seeing may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. Rather, it may simply be an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself...they experienced his presence. If what we have here is more an experience of Christ’s presence than a full-blown hallucinatory vision, this would make it easier to accept that so many individuals and even large groups could imagine they had undergone such an experience.It is far from clear, therefore, that Paul in 15:5-8 is describing anything more than a series of experiences in which many people, most of them within a group already formed for a religious purpose, felt a conviction of faith in the spiritual Christ, experiences which may well have grown in the telling.

we need to compare ideas expressed by Paul in two different passages, the one here in 1 Corinthians 15:3, and another in Galatians 1:11-12:For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not the product of men. For I did not receive (parelabon, from paralambano) it from any man, nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation of/about Jesus Christ.Paul could not make himself any clearer. The gospel he preaches is not something passed on through human channels. He did not receive it from any man. If the verb received in 1 Corinthians 15:3 is claimed to represent such a thing, then the statements in the two passages stand in direct contradiction to one another. Given his passionate declaration in Galatians, it is not likely that Paul would turn around and say to the Corinthians that he in fact got his gospel from men.

Lets see you back this up, ramoss. Explain how Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies, show examples of prophecies that are "mistranslations," and how Matthew didn't get the geography of the area correct.

But the case is, that the child of which Isaiah speaks was his own child, with which his wife or his mistress was then pregnant; for he says in the next chapter, (Is. viii. 2), "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the Priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah; and I went unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bear a son and he says, at ver. 18 of the same chapter, "Behold I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel."It may not be improper here to observe, that the word translated a virgin in Isaiah, does not signify a virgin in Hebrew, but merely a 'young woman.' The tense is also falsified in the translation. Levi gives the Hebrew text of Isaiah vii. 14, and the translation in English with it -- "Behold a young woman is with child and beareth a son;" [NOTE: A Defence of the Old Testament." By David Levi. London, 1797. -- Editor.] The expression, says he, is in the present tense. This translation agrees with the other circumstances related of the birth of this child which was to be a sign to Ahaz. But as the true translation could not have been imposed upon the world as a prophecy of a child to be born seven hundred years afterwards, the christian translators have falsified the original: and instead of making Isaiah to say, behold a young woman is with child and beareth a son, they have made him to say, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. It is, however, only necessary for a person to read Isaiah vii. and viii., and he will be convinced that the passage in question is no prophecy of the person called Jesus Christ

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the French accent!)

My prayer was that my Mother would be healed of her lung disorder. She had had 50% lung capacity for 15 years. That was healed.