Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Debunking The Resurrection With Critical Scholarship


HolyShit

Recommended Posts

I just stumbled upon one of the best breakdowns of the resurrection I've ever seen.
http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exists-for-the-resurrection-of-Jesus

What is interesting upon an examination of the texts in order from Paul to the gospels is
how the story of Jesus evolves in the telling. I quote from the source above as well as add 

the relevant verses.
 

In 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 we read:
"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

 

Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus "appeared". He makes no distinction, but in fact equates, the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others. The Greek verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one - ὤφθη meaning "appeared, was seen" - in each case. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/3708.html

 

"The choice of this word is significant because it does not necessarily imply the actual appearance of a person, but may only indicate an unusual phenomena...the use of the word ὤφθη in enumerating other visions in the Pauline lists...excludes such details as prolonged conversations, meals and resumption of ordinary life, on which the gospels dwell." - Charles Guignebert, Jesus pg. 523 

 

We know from the book of Acts, Paul's description of this encounter makes it clear that this was a vision - a light from heaven and a disembodied voice - not an encounter with a physically-revived former corpse returned to life. 

 

Acts 9:3-8

"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him...."

 

Acts 22:6-11

“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me...."

 

Acts 26:13-18

"About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions...."

 

Acts 26:19

“So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven."

We also know that the companions of Paul did not see or hear the vision/voice properly.

Acts 9:7
"The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."

Acts 22:9

"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."


So the earliest evidence from Paul is that of "visions" not encounters with a physical body which the later Gospels depict. 

Anyone know of any other interesting links or books that debunk the resurrection/empty tomb story? It's quite a joy to find

good honest scholarship in response to all the conservative apologetic spin that's out there.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus

I would recommend the truthsurge channel on YouTube. It's the most extensive debunking of the central tenets of Christianity on yt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great link.  Thanks for sharing.  Personally I view Acts as written by the same author as Luke which would mean it was written decades after Paul died.  I consider it to be mostly fiction.  But I do agree that Corinthians is the place the Rez story got started.  I see the Gospel of Mark as a response to Paul.  Matthew, Luke and Acts were a response to Mark.  Then John came much later.  You can see how the story builds in complexity over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are good videos.  Do you know which one in the series (of 37!) talks about Paul's claims about the resurrection of Jesus in I Corinthians 15?  I've been looking for that discussion but haven't found it.

---------------------

 

Found it, Part 14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite a joy to find good honest scholarship in response to all the conservative apologetic spin that's out there.

It really is. I like Tim O'Neill very much - I've been reading some of his posts and articles that I found linked over at RatSkep.

 

The only additional thing I'd have liked in that article would have been if he'd tackled the question of "well, why didn't the authorities just produce the body, then?"  Of course, it becomes a redundant question if the gospel accounts are entirely fictitious, and the body was put in a common grave somewhere, not Joseph of Arimathea's tomb.  There's an interesting article on this topic here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Obviously the concept of a prophet rising from the dead as a pre-figurement of the coming kingdom of God was very much in the air when Jesus was executed."

 

Really? I wonder why Philo and Josephus never mention such a concept in the 1,000,000+ words they wrote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you post a comment to Tim O'Neill's writeup on Quora he usually responds the same day. In regards to your question, Jewish beliefs in the 1st century varied greatly in regards to resurrection. Josephus wrote about the belief of the Pharisees:

"It is their belief that souls have power to survive death, and under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or wickedness. Some receive eternal imprisonment, while others pass easily to live again" Antiquities XVIII, 14

As for resurrection of the body see 2 Baruch 50-51.3 here: http://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA467#v=onepage&q&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean when Paul says "the perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:53)? I have heard this used to argue that Paul believed our physical body would be raised but just be changed into a spiritual one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you post a comment to Tim O'Neill's writeup on Quora he usually responds the same day. In regards to your question, Jewish beliefs in the 1st century varied greatly in regards to resurrection. Josephus wrote about the belief of the Pharisees:

 

"It is their belief that souls have power to survive death, and under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or wickedness. Some receive eternal imprisonment, while others pass easily to live again" Antiquities XVIII, 14

 

 

 

There's nothing there about "a prophet rising from the dead as a pre-figurement of the coming kingdom of God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean when Paul says "the perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:53)? I have heard this used to argue that Paul believed our physical body would be raised but just be changed into a spiritual one.

 

Just about all of Paul's analogies were anti-Jewish, anti-Torah. Jews are "of the flesh," i.e. they are circumcised. This is constantly contrasted with Christians who are "of the spirit" and are circumcised "on the heart" and don't follow the Torah "which (is) the power of sin." 

 

Look at 1 Corinthians 15 in context:

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[e] the last Adam (Jesus) became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man (Adam) was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man (Jesus) is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust (Jews), and as is the man of heaven (Jesus), so also are those who are of heaven. (Christians) 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust (Adam), we shall[f] also bear the image of the man of heaven. (Jesus)

 

50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood (Jews) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable (body) inherit the imperishable. (The Kingdom of God) 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (resurrected) 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead (Christians) will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”

55 “O death, where is your victory?

    O death, where is your sting?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law (the Torah). 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


 

If you post a comment to Tim O'Neill's writeup on Quora he usually responds the same day. In regards to your question, Jewish beliefs in the 1st century varied greatly in regards to resurrection. Josephus wrote about the belief of the Pharisees:

"It is their belief that souls have power to survive death, and under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or wickedness. Some receive eternal imprisonment, while others pass easily to live again" Antiquities XVIII, 14
 

 

 

There's nothing there about "a prophet rising from the dead as a pre-figurement of the coming kingdom of God."

 

 


I suppose Tim comes to that conclusion based on the sentences before that which you omitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

If you post a comment to Tim O'Neill's writeup on Quora he usually responds the same day. In regards to your question, Jewish beliefs in the 1st century varied greatly in regards to resurrection. Josephus wrote about the belief of the Pharisees:

 

"It is there belief that souls have power to survive death, and under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or wickedness. Some receive eternal imprisonment, while others pass easily to live again" Antiquities XVIII, 14

 

As for resurrection of the body see 2 Baruch 50-51.3 here: http://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA467#v=onepage&q&f=false

I was told by others on this website that the jews didn't believe in an afterlife at all. Strange

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are christians supposed to be raised in spiritual bodies as in like non-corporeal spirits? Or just like a glorified physical body (one that is immortal/imperishable)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

I believe the bible says it will be an incorruptible spiritual body. Jesus said those that would be saved will be like the angels in heaven. Angels are suppose to be spirits so....my 2 denari

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the earliest Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection. However, as with Judaism, there were many competing beliefs in the 1st and 2nd centuries. What we find in the Bible today are just the beliefs that won out over the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

What we find in the Bible today are just the beliefs that won out over the rest.

Yes, the orthodoxy won out over the others. I read that the books that we have in the new testament today were actually held as heretic by some groups and the books we hold as heretical today were held as canonical by other groups. I even read somewhere that the old testament originally contained only 26 books or something to that effect. -Off topic, great profile name 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What does it mean when Paul says "the perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:53)? I have heard this used to argue that Paul believed our physical body would be raised but just be changed into a spiritual one.

 

Just about all of Paul's analogies were anti-Jewish, anti-Torah. Jews are "of the flesh," i.e. they are circumcised. This is constantly contrasted with Christians who are "of the spirit" and are circumcised "on the heart" and don't follow the Torah "which (is) the power of sin." 

 

Look at 1 Corinthians 15 in context:

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[e] the last Adam (Jesus) became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man (Adam) was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man (Jesus) is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust (Jews), and as is the man of heaven (Jesus), so also are those who are of heaven. (Christians) 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust (Adam), we shall[f] also bear the image of the man of heaven. (Jesus)

 

50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood (Jews) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable (body) inherit the imperishable. (The Kingdom of God) 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (resurrected) 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead (Christians) will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”

55 “O death, where is your victory?

    O death, where is your sting?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law (the Torah). 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

Many of Paul's views were pro-Jewish as Paula Fredriksen notes: http://books.google.com/books?id=RNAvCtgEgtMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA160#v=onepage&q&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Many of Paul's views were pro-Jewish"

 

Not really. Let's look at the ones Fredrickson cites:

 

Romans 9:4 "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises" is followed by the hugely insulting passage of 9:8 that explains children of physical descent (Jews) are not God's children, but "children of the promise" (Christians) are. It follows Paul's general rhetorical strategy of acknowledging that the Jewish religion and tradition has existed in the past but has been superseded by the righteousness of his buddies, the Gentiles.  

 
Galatians 5:14 "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" -- this is a actually an extreme put-down of the Torah. It comes just shortly after Paul has written, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse." This is followed from the wish that Jews emasculate themselves during circumcision. One of the most disgusting, hateful things ever written by anyone.
 
1 Corinthians 14:34 "the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."
So the one time Paul actually does say something positive about the Law, it is in favor of the oppression of women!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I suppose that Paul's writings are ambiguous and contradictory. Aren't some of his letters supposedly pseudepigraphical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy are definitely forged. 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians are probably forged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy are definitely forged. 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians are probably forged

I have heard bart ehrman say this. But how do we know with absolute sincerity that these books are forged? Even the apostle paul has been debated on this site as might not having existed at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The language used in these books is quite different from the other Pauline letters

2) They presuppose letters and documents written after the lifetime of Paul

3) The views expressed in them sometimes contradict the views in the earlier Pauline epistles

4) They address issues that the Church was facing during the 2nd century rather than Paul's lifetime

 

Even most Christian theologians accept that they are pseudographical.

 

For more reasons why Pauline authorship is rejected, you can read about them on earlychristianwritings.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.