Reserection "historical Reality"

[Badger]

It does unless you desire a 1 to 1 explanation of events and then it does not. Since that appears to be what you seek then you will very likely remain safe knowing that you will not be confronted with such a parallel.

Sorry mwc, this "parallel" appears to make no sense. I just don't understand. Did something happened to Hubbard's body? Did anything happened to Jesus' body? Honestly, I have problems with this. That the disciples came to believe in Jesus' resurrection simply because Jesus had, supposedly of course, taught so will happen doesn't sound very plausible. I'm thinking the situation was different from that of Hubbard's case, but I don't know enough. That the early Christian beliefs departed from the Jewish mentality as strongly as they did argues that something more concrete (if that's the right word?) happened, which would explain such a reather strange deviance. The bodily resurrection of Jesus explains this much better than any other hypothesis.

[mwc]

Did something happened to Hubbard's body?

Yes. It died.

 

Did anything happened to Jesus' body?

According to the story. Yes. It died.

 

Honestly, I have problems with this.

I'm not surprised. It's obvious by your questions.

 

That the disciples came to believe in Jesus' resurrection simply because Jesus had, supposedly of course, taught so will happen doesn't sound very plausible.

Okay. Then why did YOU come to believe in his resurrection? (This is rhetorical...I don't need a testimony) You can't tell me it was via anything the "original" 11/12 would have had access to. You're 2000 years removed so that is simply impossible. And so everyone beyond those few would have to rely on exactly what you are arguing against.

 

Which then, leads us to...So why not the originals? Why can't they also come to believe for the same reason(s) others have come to believe for literally ~21 centuries? This is not implausible. They believed it because that is what they had to believe. You even brought up the concept of "cognitive dissonance" yourself. I think you should familiarize yourself with cults and "cognitive dissonance." I tried to dismiss it to allow for other possibilities but if we need to try to assume we know the mental state of the disciples then that's fine with me.

 

I'm thinking the situation was different from that of Hubbard's case, but I don't know enough. That the early Christian beliefs departed from the Jewish mentality as strongly as they did argues that something more concrete (if that's the right word?) happened, which would explain such a reather strange deviance.

The situation was different. I've said as much. The acceptance of the news was the same. An announcement came that he was dead. He had moved on to his work in his "spirit life" (as I said I don't know their terminology on this but it's like "transcending"). There were no objections or demands for proof. No "Why doesn't LRH somehow communicate this to us himself?" Just acceptance. He was the first. The "proof." Now they all wish to follow as he did. Though nothing was actually demonstrated to anyone that anything was actually possible. Only a report was passed on.

 

The xian beliefs aren't that different. And considering they believed that "jesus" was to be the "first fruits" that could mean that they simply thought that judgment was upon them and everyone else was going to get the same treatment at any moment. Time was of the essence. That it didn't work that way is another issue.

 

The bodily resurrection of Jesus explains this much better than any other hypothesis.

The least plausible of all explanations seems the best hypothesis to you? "Magic" is only good for some entertainment.

 

mwc

[Badger]

The situation was different. I've said as much. The acceptance of the news was the same.

According to the tradition, early one in this case (c. 30-35 AD), Jesus appeared to the disciples. That is, the disciples (or at least some of them) had experiences which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. Furthermore, while there are differences between the material recorded in 1 Cor. 15 and the Gospels accounts, appearances are multiple attested with some independence arguing also for the authenticity of phenomena (not resurrection). In addition to these, I would like to point out tradition in John 20 where Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene. Given general reluctance to accept female testimony in crucial matters and the fact that Mary fails to recognize Jesus, it is unlikely that this story is fabricated. Then we have Paul who testifies Jesus having appreared to him as well, and it is probable that Jesus' brother James too was converted as a result of such appearance. "We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect." In addition to Paul, "that Jesus appeared to others (Peter, Mary Magdalene, James) cannot very well be questioned." (Helmut Koester, quoted from Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present)

 

The least plausible of all explanations seems the best hypothesis to you?

It is implausible only if one believe there absolutely is nothing beyond the nature; wheter such belief is justified is another issue.

[mwc]

According to the tradition, early one in this case (c. 30-35 AD), Jesus appeared to the disciples. That is, the disciples (or at least some of them) had experiences which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. Furthermore, while there are differences between the material recorded in 1 Cor. 15 and the Gospels accounts, appearances are multiple attested with some independence arguing also for the authenticity of phenomena (not resurrection). In addition to these, I would like to point out tradition in John 20 where Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene. Given general reluctance to accept female testimony in crucial matters and the fact that Mary fails to recognize Jesus, it is unlikely that this story is fabricated. Then we have Paul who testifies Jesus having appreared to him as well, and it is probable that Jesus' brother James too was converted as a result of such appearance. "We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect." In addition to Paul, "that Jesus appeared to others (Peter, Mary Magdalene, James) cannot very well be questioned." (Helmut Koester, quoted from Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present)

So you're backing away from "cognitive dissonance?" Probably not. I imagine you'll still employ it where it suits you.

 

I'm guessing I'm supposed to explain away Paul, and now, Mary M. and even a James?

 

Show me them in the historical record beyond the church? They don't exist. So I'll explain the characters of the play if you like. It's all hypothetical to me anyhow.

 

James the "brother" of "jesus." Converted so strongly he apparently became high priest. His xian influence was so strong that no one ever heard of it. And he died a mighty xian martyr death. Amazing story. Next.

 

Mary M. She sailed away across the sea to unknown lands. Amazing. Her conversion is historic. Next.

 

Paul wants to lead, but be humble, but lead, but be humble, but lead...so badly. Is he a somebody or not? He believes in visions and speaking in tongues. He teaches others in his group how to do the same. So how many people in his "churches" can get visions of "jesus?" Maybe hundreds. Maybe none. We don't know. We only have Paul's writings and he isn't telling. How does Paul meet his end? He doesn't write about that either. No surprise there. He's no Moses after all.

 

Was I supposed to get more from the cut and paste? Why would I accept a late added story from John 20? Not made up? It's all made up. From lightening flashes and angels giving commands in G.Matthew to a quick stop over for her to talk, alone, with a "gardener" at the break of day? So after the angels told her that "jesus" had risen and to go tell the others of the good news that she took a few steps and realized how stupid that sounded, saw a random man, thought him to be the gardener just out walking about with no tools, decided to break down and have a little chat about where he may have placed "jesus" since the lightening and angels she witnessed first hand made no sense of course so a corpse-napping must be the case, then run off with the newly related news from the resurrected "jesus" before the guards woke up and went to report to the the temple? Okay. This falls into the realm of reality and it's obviously the most simple answer.

 

It is implausible only if one believe there absolutely is nothing beyond the nature; wheter such belief is justified is another issue.

No. It is the least plausible because people do not come back from the dead. It has nothing to do with "beyond" anything. It has everything to do with taking all that is known to occur, weighing it and laying out the probability from there. On such a scale a "resurrection" rates at zero. Acts of "god" also rate at zero. They do not occur. Belief in such things may rate higher than zero but unless you can provide some form of evidence that these events take place then they, the events themselves, rank at zero. They do not take place. You need to understand and separate the two. An event and belief in an event are two distinct items. I truly believe that belief in the supernatural is a reality. On the other hand there is no evidence for the supernatural so these beliefs are unfounded so the probability of any supernatural events actually occurring, though there are belief in them, are zero. If evidence comes to light then this can be recalculated at that time. To present this has been unnecessary.

 

mwc

[Badger]

Show me them in the historical record beyond the church? They don't exist.

But that's hardly a problem. Above I already explained why tradition can be trusted in this matter.

 

Belief in such things may rate higher than zero but unless you can provide some form of evidence that these events take place then they, the events themselves, rank at zero. They do not take place.

That's what I have done. I have provided evidence why Jesus' resurrection can be reasonable accepted.

[mwc]

But that's hardly a problem. Above I already explained why tradition can be trusted in this matter.

In which matter? The matter of their existence in church tradition? Perfectly sound reasoning.

 

That's what I have done. I have provided evidence why Jesus' resurrection can be reasonable accepted.

I think you believe you have done a lot more than what you have actually done. You've provided no actual evidence and certainly nothing that would allow for a supernatural event to be accepted as "reasonable."

 

For example you glossed over your own introduction of John 20. By your own standard you allow for the dismissal of supernatural events with a single attestation. The encounter between Mary M. and "jesus" as the "gardener" is one such event. The other gospels record no such event and their telling of events do not allow for it to even occur. Yet you accept this single event over the similar contrary attestations of the other evangelists.

 

Mark

 

16.1 [...] Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, [...] they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" 16.4 [...] they saw that the stone was rolled back; [...] 16.5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man [...] 16.6 And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. 16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." 16.8 And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

The three women go to the tomb and have no idea how they will get the tomb open (so why go to the tomb?). The tomb is already open. A young man is present. The young man delivers the resurrection doctrine that they had been taught, lets them look in the tomb and informs them to tell the others to go to Galilee. They do not.

 

Matthew

 

28.2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. 28.3 His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. 28.4 [...] 28.5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 28.6 He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 28.7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I have told you." 28.8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 28.9 [...] Jesus met them and said, "Hail!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 28.10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me."

An earthquake takes place. An angel descends and removes the stone. The angel delivers the resurrection doctrine that they had been taught. They look in the now empty tomb. The angel informs them to pass the doctrine on to the disciples and for the disciples to the meeting place in Galilee. On their way the women see "jesus," grab his feet and worship him. He also delivers the message to go to Galilee.

 

Luke

 

24.2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 24.3 but when they went in they did not find the body. 24.4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; 24.5 [...] the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? 24.6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 24.7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise." 24.8 And they remembered his words, 24.9 and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 24.10 Now it was Mary Mag'dalene and Jo-an'na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles; 24.11 but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.

The women find the tomb already open. The examine of their own accord. Two men happen to be there (how they got there we aren't told). The two men remind them of the resurrection doctrine. Upon being told they do recall hearing it. They go back to the eleven and tell them of their encounter. The eleven do not believe them.

 

At this point we have the women going to the tomb and the women leaving the tomb being common to all these tellings. Other than that there are similarities but they vary. Things that are similar are: The tomb is opened at some point prior to, or while, the women being present. The women are informed by an unknown person or persons of the resurrection event. The women inspect the tomb at some point before the leave. The women are told to tell the others to go to Galilee or simply tell the others.

 

In John it is a whole other story altogether:

John

 

20.1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 20.2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." 20.3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 20.4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; 20.5 and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 20.6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 20.7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. 20.8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 20.9 for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 20.10 Then the disciples went back to their homes.

In this version Mary M. comes by herself. She finds the stone rolled away. She immediately find two other disciples without making further investigation herself. At this point only the stone being rolled away is in agreement with any of the other versions.

 

The two others arrive and go into the tomb. The see the various burial objects but no body. This caused the "beloved disciple" to believe. It doesn't appear Peter did yet. G.John cites that they did not yet know "scripture, that he must rise from the dead" which is highly suspicious and it goes against what the other authors wrote considering what was taught to them. They were taught that he would die and rise again. I posted the verse and the angel repeats it above.

 

20.11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb; 20.12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 20.13 They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." 20.14 Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 20.15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." 20.16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rab-bo'ni!" (which means Teacher). 20.17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." 20.18 Mary Mag'dalene went and said to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

Mary then sees the angels in the tomb after the men leave. Apparently the "beloved" disciple did not share his opinion with her. She also must be accustomed to speaking with angels because the disciples are gone and two angels are in the tomb but she speaks to them as if they're just people off the street. No surprise at all that angels in white are now sitting in the tomb. I don't know if I could be so nonchalant. Then "jesus" is there. He must have been hiding from the other two. He tells her to go tell the others some things. So why did the angels and "jesus" delay? If they would have came out a short time earlier then three followers would have been there. Mysterious ways indeed.

 

At this point there is nothing that truly agrees with the other stories. There is a similarity between the two angels in the tomb and the other accounts but in the other accounts Mary M. is not alone but there are always other women around. So should we accept the lone Mary M. story over the multiply attested group of women versions? It seems the rules set forth would say we should dismiss the lone Mary M. version. The other similarity would be the meeting with "jesus." Again, a lone Mary M. meets "jesus" and is given some information and told to pass it along to the other disciples. The closest version states that multiple women met with "jesus" and were told to do the same thing. Since the lone Mary M. encounter can be dismissed we can look at the other version instead. It then becomes the sole source for that encounter. So did the group of women meet "jesus?" It seems unlikely. Only one author speaks to it. So the women simply left the tomb.

 

mwc

[Badger]

In which matter? The matter of their existence in church tradition? Perfectly sound reasoning.

That there was a group of Jesus' disciples in Jerusalem who believed that Jesus had appeared to them after his death. We cannot know exactly when this happened, or how many saw him, but it took place within five years of the crucifixion. The reason to take this (not resurrection) as historically certain is that we have early testimony (30-35 AD), multiple attestation (Paul, the Synoptic Gospels and John), including elements of embarrassment (disciples' doubts, women as witness), and testimony of former enemy (Paul and perhaps James). What kind of sources we have in the case of the phoenix? However, I see no reason to claim none could have believed they saw it.

 

For example you glossed over your own introduction of John 20. By your own standard you allow for the dismissal of supernatural events with a single attestation. The encounter between Mary M. and "jesus" as the "gardener" is one such event. The other gospels record no such event and their telling of events do not allow for it to even occur. Yet you accept this single event over the similar contrary attestations of the other evangelists.

Perhaps I was ambiguous. The point is that appearance to Mary Magdalene is most likely true, since it is harder to believe the early Church would have fabricated such a story. Also, it is attested by both John and Matthew. I hope you understand that I'm not arguing there must be something supernatural in these experiences or that they prove the resurrection.

[mwc]

That there was a group of Jesus' disciples in Jerusalem who believed that Jesus had appeared to them after his death. We cannot know exactly when this happened, or how many saw him, but it took place within five years of the crucifixion. The reason to take this (not resurrection) as historically certain is that we have early testimony (30-35 AD), multiple attestation (Paul, the Synoptic Gospels and John), including elements of embarrassment (disciples' doubts, women as witness), and testimony of former enemy (Paul and perhaps James). What kind of sources we have in the case of the phoenix? However, I see no reason to claim none could have believed they saw it.

And who reported these stories? In the case of the disciples (by way of the gospels) we have unknown anonymous sources written long after the supposed event. This makes it difficult to verify the veracity of the claim. It is agreed that the anonymous authors agree in the general sense.

 

Paul? Yes, Paul included himself in religion. He seemed to do whatever he thought necessary to be a part of it at the highest level. That seemed to include seeing "jesus" in some fashion.

 

My own grandfather also saw "jesus." I'm not kidding. Does he qualify as an apostle?

 

The "evidence" you insist on putting before me is not "evidence" at all.

 

Perhaps I was ambiguous. The point is that appearance to Mary Magdalene is most likely true, since it is harder to believe the early Church would have fabricated such a story. Also, it is attested by both John and Matthew. I hope you understand that I'm not arguing there must be something supernatural in these experiences or that they prove the resurrection.

Perhaps I was ambiguous. I wrote quite a bit on this in my last message and it appears that I was not understood or ignored.

 

It is not harder to believe that the early church would invent the story. It is very easy for me to accept such a thing.

 

Next it is not attested to by both G.John and G.Matthew. A similar type of incident is reported but they are not the same. For someone who could not see the parallels between one cult and another you can easily connect these two incidents with no problems. I demonstrated the differences in my last post. I'll quickly cover them for you here.

 

G.John has Mary M. travel to the tomb alone, G.Matthew has Mary in a group.

G.John has Mary M. find the tomb open, G.Matthew has an earthquake, an angel descending from heaven and rolling away the stone

G.John has no parallel for this, G.Matthew has the angel explain the resurrection to the women and they examine the tomb

G.John has Mary M. rush to tell the disciples upon finding the open tomb, G.Matthew has the group go together to the disciples

G.John has Peter and another disciple return with Mary M. to examine the tomb, G.Matthew has no parallel as the disciples never visit the tomb

G.John has Mary M. find "jesus" by herself, G.Matthew has the group find "jesus" together

G.John has Mary M. unable to touch "jesus," G.Matthew has the women grab his feet

G.John has Mary M. unable to immediately recognize "jesus," G.Matthew has the women recognize and worship "jesus" without hesitation

G.John has Mary M. leave to tell the disciples, G.Matthew has "jesus" tell the women to inform the disciples to go to Galilee

G.John has the next "sighting" in Jerusalem, G.Matthew has the next "sighting" in Galilee

I think that's about it. The events are way off. If Mary M. was present at the events as described by any of the synoptic authors (here I used G.Matthew since he supposedly also records the events of John 20) then she would already be aware of what happened with the body. She would have known, via the "men" or "angels" that the resurrection had occured and not thought that the body had been taken. None of the other evangelists record the visit of the two disciples to the tomb or the return visit of Mary M. where she somehow had acquired amnesia forgetting what had transpired a short time before. What G.Matthew records involves the entire group of women and they go, as a group, to tell the disciples.

 

Last. You are speaking of something supernatural. You are speaking of a bodily resurrection. If all the women grabbed hold of the feet of "jesus" and worshiped him then they must have grabbed ahold of something. So if the story of Mary M. in John 20 couldn't have happened because it goes against the stories of the rest of the evangelists then we're left with the telling by G.Matthew. In his version they grab ahold of something. This would require something supernatural to have occured. We have to then look at at the other remaining accounts to see if they are aware of this and they are not. This leaves us with nothing to support G.Matthew. His account is without support as well. The ordering of events doesn't leave room for the telling in G.John and there is no one to support the claim in G.Matthew. This leaves us with no support for any appearances of a "jesus" of any kind at the tomb.

 

So what is at the tomb? According to all four accounts there were one or two "men" or "angels" there that morning that provided the information to the women. The women then passed that information along to the disciples. That is the source of your resurrection. Locate the "men" from that story and that is the origin of your religion.

 

mwc

[Badger]

And who reported these stories? In the case of the disciples (by way of the gospels) we have unknown anonymous sources written long after the supposed event. This makes it difficult to verify the veracity of the claim. It is agreed that the anonymous authors agree in the general sense.

I guess that anonymity and writing long after events (50+ years in this case) are not generally big problems in history. Nor does it make anything difficult right now. I'm not arguing for the historicity of Gospel's easter stories. What I am saying is that there was a group of people in Jerusalem who believed that hey saw the risen Jesus after his death. And that the evidence for this is indeed strong can also be demonstrated by pointing out that it is accepted as a historical fact by many critical scholars.

 

The "evidence" you insist on putting before me is not "evidence" at all.

It is just that kind of evidence one can have for historical event.

 

Perhaps I was ambiguous. I wrote quite a bit on this in my last message and it appears that I was not understood or ignored.

It was ignored since I didn't see any relevance in it. As I said, I'm not arguing for the historicity of easter stories.

 

Next it is not attested to by both G.John and G.Matthew. A similar type of incident is reported but they are not the same.

And that's enough. Both John and Matthew reports that Jesus' appeared to Mary.

 

You are speaking of something supernatural. You are speaking of a bodily resurrection.

I'm not speaking of a bodily resurrection right now. I'm speaking of the disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus.

 

This leaves us with no support for any appearances of a "jesus" of any kind at the tomb.

I have not argued Jesus appeared at the tomb. In my last post I stated that "We cannot know exactly when this happened, or how many saw him, but it took place within five years of the crucifixion."

 

So what is at the tomb? According to all four accounts there were one or two "men" or "angels" there that morning that provided the information to the women. The women then passed that information along to the disciples. That is the source of your resurrection. Locate the "men" from that story and that is the origin of your religion.

I have said many times I'm not assuming historical reliability of the Gospels. I'm not arguing the resurrection happened becuse the Bible says it happened. It doesn't matter wheter there actually was these two men or not. What matter is that wheter or not the tomb was found empty.

[mwc]

I guess that anonymity and writing long after events (50+ years in this case) are not generally big problems in history. Nor does it make anything difficult right now. I'm not arguing for the historicity of Gospel's easter stories. What I am saying is that there was a group of people in Jerusalem who believed that hey saw the risen Jesus after his death. And that the evidence for this is indeed strong can also be demonstrated by pointing out that it is accepted as a historical fact by many critical scholars.

But I already tried to simply agree with you to see where this would take us. It went nowhere. This must not be what you really wish to state. That some stories of people believing in some supposed resurrection is accepted by some historians is not what you're here to say. That appears to be the stepping-off point for what you seem to want to say but you never go there. If that is all you have to say then this is a waste of time.

 

 

It is just that kind of evidence one can have for historical event.

And that historical event would be?

 

It was ignored since I didn't see any relevance in it. As I said, I'm not arguing for the historicity of easter stories.

The "easter stories" are the stories of resurrection. If they can't hold together then there may be problems in this "historical record."

 

And that's enough. Both John and Matthew reports that Jesus' appeared to Mary.

I wish I could be so cavalier. You enjoy having things all ways, don't you? If that is what you consider "critical" then I doubt your ability.

 

I'm not speaking of a bodily resurrection right now. I'm speaking of the disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus.

And you apparently never will. I don't care anymore. I don't care what the disciples believed. I don't care what your cadre of historians think the disciples believed. The disciples believed whatever they believed and then they did whatever they did. Maybe they grew wings and flew away? It really makes no difference any longer.

 

They can do it in Galilee or Jerusalem or on Mars. As long as they did it, right? It doesn't matter where. Or when. Or how. All we need is a note in a text that reports that "they believed" and that is good enough. So that's fine with me. The disciples grew wings, flew to Mars and it was there that they believed in something. My version is as historical as the rest because it states the basic point that they believed. Now go get a historian to back this sentence up and you're good to go.

 

I have not argued Jesus appeared at the tomb. In my last post I stated that "We cannot know exactly when this happened, or how many saw him, but it took place within five years of the crucifixion."

I really don't know what you've argued. You mostly post quotes and appeal to authority. I've spent more of my time building arguments against people who aren't in this "discussion" trying to guess at what it is your actual argument is. I'm tilting at windmills here.

 

I have said many times I'm not assuming historical reliability of the Gospels. I'm not arguing the resurrection happened becuse the Bible says it happened. It doesn't matter wheter there actually was these two men or not. What matter is that wheter or not the tomb was found empty.

You're assuming it happened because the historians have all agreed that the bible has said it happened. Big difference.

 

So you can dismiss the "man" or "men" for no reason whatsoever? The source of the actual story of the resurrection? The "prime movers?" The ones that instruct the women to go to the disciples? The ones that set the entire set of events that your "argument" rest upon into motion? Without them the women go nowhere. The disciples just sit around. No one "sees" or "does" anything. Nothing happens. The only common theme across all four gospels making him/them the highest attested of all. You're right. Lets ignore this. It's meaningless.

 

mwc

[Badger]

But I already tried to simply agree with you to see where this would take us. It went nowhere. This must not be what you really wish to state. That some stories of people believing in some supposed resurrection is accepted by some historians is not what you're here to say. That appears to be the stepping-off point for what you seem to want to say but you never go there. If that is all you have to say then this is a waste of time.

You must keep in mind the original case I laid out in page 2. There I said this,

I would propose the following events as "historical facts:"

• Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.
  
  
• His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.
  
  
• The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  
  
• Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.
  
  
• James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.
  
  
• A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.
  
  

Then I said that I believe Jesus' resurrection happened since it explains all these facts better than any other hypothesis does. In fact, to reject this hypothesis leads to problems since one must then either reject one or more of the above facts, and provide plausible reason to do so, or use several (less likely) hypothesies to explain the data.

 

And that historical event would be?

In this case, that there was a group of Jesus' disciples in Jerusalem who believed that Jesus had appeared to them after his death.

 

The "easter stories" are the stories of resurrection. If they can't hold together then there may be problems in this "historical record."

I can freely admit there are problems in Gospel's easter stories. That doesn't affect my argumentation.

 

I wish I could be so cavalier. You enjoy having things all ways, don't you? If that is what you consider "critical" then I doubt your ability.

In Matthew 28 Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene right? Same with John 20, isn't it?

 

I really don't know what you've argued. You mostly post quotes and appeal to authority. I've spent more of my time building arguments against people who aren't in this "discussion" trying to guess at what it is your actual argument is. I'm tilting at windmills here.

I have argued that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best hypothesis for the historical facts we have (see above). I have explained why those events or factors, some of them so far, can be accepted as historical facts and then provided quotations from scholars to show I'm not alone. Appealing to authority is not logical fallacy when person in question is a legitimate authority on the subject.

 

You're assuming it happened because the historians have all agreed that the bible has said it happened.

That's not true. See above.

 

I hope this makes it easier to understand.

[mwc]

You must keep in mind the original case I laid out in page 2. There I said this,

I would propose the following events as "historical facts:"

• Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.
  
  
• His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.
  
  
• The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  
  
• Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.
  
  
• James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.
  
  
• A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.
  
  

You've provided no evidence for any of the above. You've posted some quotes but nothing beyond that. There is no evidence of these events taking place.

 

I'm not going to address these points one by one but as it was your case to lay out you should have made it clear what point you were addressing and when.

 

Then I said that I believe Jesus' resurrection happened since it explains all these facts better than any other hypothesis does. In fact, to reject this hypothesis leads to problems since one must then either reject one or more of the above facts, and provide plausible reason to do so, or use several (less likely) hypothesies to explain the data.

Funny. I'm going to hell for rejecting it as well.

 

In this case, that there was a group of Jesus' disciples in Jerusalem who believed that Jesus had appeared to them after his death.

We don't know this. We only have stories that claim this. What can you show me, beyond the stories, that indicate this was the case? Do you have anything from these said "disciples" that state that they were transformed by this supposed event? They are supposed to have written letters. Do they mention this transformation within any of them? Or are we out of luck? Do we simply rely on "tradition" once again?

 

I can freely admit there are problems in Gospel's easter stories. That doesn't affect my argumentation.

I can see that.

 

In Matthew 28 Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene right? Same with John 20, isn't it?

No. It's not under the same conditions. This alters the appearance. In G.John "jesus" appears multiple times to the disciples. It's not accurate to say this is the same as the single appearance written about by the other authors. There are three to choose from. To state the authors are recording the same event we would need to know which of the three events in G.John we are matching to the other author(s). Then we would attempt to match them. We would not match the mountaintop appearance to the one at the sea shore. They don't match. Sure, "jesus" made an appearance but it's dishonest to say that any appearance is as good as any other when trying to set things in an historical perspective. To state that the authors of G.Matthew and G.John are recording the same appearance related to Mary M. then the conditions need to be a bit more alike.

 

To make my point more clear you would like to say that "jesus" was crucified. But would it be good enough to say he was killed by a kick by a donkey? I mean he's dead after all, right? Dead is dead and you just need him dead to toss him in a tomb of some sort. I doubt this would be "close enough." There's enough debate over "hanging from a tree" so I doubt the "donkey kick" would work.

 

We agree that there are two stories where "jesus" appears where Mary M. is present but the rest of the details are such that they aren't the same event.

 

I have argued that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best hypothesis for the historical facts we have (see above). I have explained why those events or factors, some of them so far, can be accepted as historical facts and then provided quotations from scholars to show I'm not alone. Appealing to authority is not logical fallacy when person in question is a legitimate authority on the subject.

Appealing to authority is not a decent way to create an argument. It's just appealing to authority. I'm fully aware you're not alone on many of these issues. I don't believe I have ever brought this into question. I also know of no authority on bodily resurrection.

 

mwc

[Badger]

We don't know this. We only have stories that claim this. What can you show me, beyond the stories, that indicate this was the case? Do you have anything from these said "disciples" that state that they were transformed by this supposed event? They are supposed to have written letters. Do they mention this transformation within any of them? Or are we out of luck? Do we simply rely on "tradition" once again?

I don't see what's the problem. If we have early testimony (the creed recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-5) according to which Jesus appeared to certain people, and this is attested by one or more independent source(s) I think we can conclude that some believed it happened; what caused these phenomena is another issue. If you think this is not convincing enough, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. Still I really think the evidence is what one can expect to have for historical event.

 

We agree that there are two stories where "jesus" appears where Mary M. is present but the rest of the details are such that they aren't the same event.

Good. That's enough.

 

Appealing to authority is not a decent way to create an argument. It's just appealing to authority.

That's why I have also presented arguments.

[mwc]

I don't see what's the problem. If we have early testimony (the creed recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-5) according to which Jesus appeared to certain people, and this is attested by one or more independent source(s) I think we can conclude that some believed it happened; what caused these phenomena is another issue. If you think this is not convincing enough, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. Still I really think the evidence is what one can expect to have for historical event.

I'm glad we finally agree that you should not repeat yourself any longer. It wasn't convincing the first times around and it won't be anymore convincing if you do it again.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I hate to post links to long documents but go and download this PDF on critical analysis of historical documents and give it a quick read. Maybe that will help more than I can?

 

mwc

[Badger]

I'm glad we finally agree that you should not repeat yourself any longer. It wasn't convincing the first times around and it won't be anymore convincing if you do it again.

I would like to ask then what is your explanation for stories of Jesus' appearance, especially the record in 1 Cor 15?

 

Thanks for the link but when I open the file nothing show up. No text, nothing.

[mwc]

I would like to ask then what is your explanation for stories of Jesus' appearance, especially the record in 1 Cor 15?

I will quickly touch on this but I really don't wish to discuss this again. I feel it will simply be a rehash of what has already been said. If it appears to me that is the case then I will simply stop.

 

So I'll put up the verses one more time so we can take a look at them:

1 Now, brothers,

I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you

, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

Paul wished to remind them of what he's already taught them.

 

3 For

what I received I passed on to you

as of first importance:

A key piece of information in 3a.

 

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

All this is "according to the scriptures."

 

So he is telling them what he has "received" and that was these events happened according to the "scriptures." So far nothing has really happened except he is passing on some information he has been told and, like we can see with others in the church of the day, they "verify" it by looking through the Jewish "scripture." His letters contain numerous examples of his doing this as do the gospels for other authors.

 

5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Then we have the part of the statement that you hinge your entire argument upon.

 

It makes no mention of the women. Any of them. We can exclude them due to the ancient bias against women even though Paul regularly mentions women.

 

We know that Peter is not the first to see "jesus" in any of the known accounts but who are we to argue with Paul? Peter is simply the first to see the tomb in G.John.

 

The first male disciples to see "jesus" were the two on the road but they are unreported by Paul.

 

The eleven (not twelve as we've discussed) see him for the first time at Galilee. Or is it Jerusalem? It doesn't matter because only ten of them are present since Thomas isn't there until the next week (or is he?).

 

As of the first Pentecost the church was too small to have 500 "brothers" for him to appear to. It supposedly grows by 3000 people on Pentecost but Acts says that "jesus" leaves before then. So who were these people? Many of them died in the short time between that appearance and this letter so it doesn't matter anyway.

 

There's no way to tell which "James" he means from just a first name. I know who people want this to be but there's no reason to connect this James to the high priest James.

 

Then he finally appears to "all the apostles." That's so generic it just might work.

 

Then Paul lays claim to having seen him as well.

 

So how do I explain this? Do I have to? There's only two "hits" on the whole list and one is so generic it just matches by default and one is because Paul makes the claim and there's not much you, I or anyone can do to tell Paul he can't do that. So two matches.

 

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

And here is how Paul would have acquired his knowledge. Take a look at Acts. Anyone who gets "caught" makes a little speech to their captor. Surely Paul heard many xians speak on their religion many times during the course of his "persecutions." He didn't have to hear the drawn out martyr speeches of Acts but something more realistic. He didn't put in ear-plugs when he encountered these people. He was exposed to the "virus."

 

Even according to Acts he was under their "influence" in Damascus. It came from somewhere. He passed it along. It was obviously different than what the gospel evangelists knew because his information is different. Perhaps having this sort of "sighting" was the difference between mere disciple or flock member and apostle? I don't know.

 

Thanks for the link but when I open the file nothing show up. No text, nothing.

Strange. Here's a more direct link to the PDF that bypasses the summary page. It works in FireFox3 (my browser).

 

mwc

[Badger]

Thanks for your expound. I feel however that you either missed or ignored the important point that based on the linguistic data and structure (or style) the material in 1 Cor 15:3-5 is originally non-Pauline. This means it is earlier than AD 50 or so when Paul visited Corinth first time and delivered it to them.

[mwc]

Thanks for your expound. I feel however that you either missed or ignored the important point that based on the linguistic data and structure (or style) the material in 1 Cor 15:3-5 is originally non-Pauline. This means it is earlier than AD 50 or so when Paul visited Corinth first time and delivered it to them.

I don't believe I missed the point.

 

Paul uses these phrases: "the gospel I preached to you," "which you received," "what I received I passed on to you." This creates the chain for how this information is passed along. Paul therefore got the information from elsewhere. Since he is simply a link in the chain where he got the information is unknown. He does not reveal his source.

 

I explored the differences between this version and the other versions because it shows that the story changes over time or there were competing versions. Since Paul also writes of people teaching alternate versions the latter seems plausible though Paul does not tell us the extent of what his competition was teaching so it is impossible to know.

 

Since Paul's time line is established from Acts and not internally from Paul's letters the date cannot be known for certain. Only some relative offsets can be known from the letters themselves (ie. he mentions it was so many years since this happened or that happened).

 

mwc

[Badger]

Paul therefore got the information from elsewhere. Since he is simply a link in the chain where he got the information is unknown. He does not reveal his source.

But there is no reason to assume Paul couldn't get the material from Jerusalem Church, is there? Actually that's quite likely since the creed mentions Cephas, "the twelve" and probably James. We also know from Paul's letters that he had some association with the Jerusalem apostles.

 

I explored the differences between this version and the other versions because it shows that the story changes over time or there were competing versions.

Yes, and I think that only confirms what I said. Appearances, or at least belief in them, had great influence on early Christianity. In fact, "The story of Jesus after his death is also part of his life, since it is only because of this history that we still know anything about him" (Lüdemann; from The Cambridge Companion to Jesus).

[mwc]

But there is no reason to assume Paul couldn't get the material from Jerusalem Church, is there? Actually that's quite likely since the creed mentions Cephas, "the twelve" and probably James. We also know from Paul's letters that he had some association with the Jerusalem apostles.

And he was unimpressed by the Jerusalem church. It's equally likely the creed didn't originate there.

 

So he claims he got his gospel via revelation and that he went from Damascus to Arabia and only went to Jerusalem after three years. He also states that the churches in Jerusalem only knew of his reputation and did not know him by his face. So he had no activities in that region.

 

It seems unlikely he stalled his own mission for three years. It seems unlikely that he would get this prototype version from Cephas or James that has only one possible piece of "correct" information within it (an appearance to James that can't be verified...and Paul can simply add himself to the end of the list of course). We're still dealing with the same issue(s) that I mentioned before. Multiple versions or a changing version.

 

Yes, and I think that only confirms what I said. Appearances, or at least belief in them, had great influence on early Christianity. In fact, "The story of Jesus after his death is also part of his life, since it is only because of this history that we still know anything about him" (Lüdemann; from The Cambridge Companion to Jesus).

This means nothing. It's nice that he thinks this way but it's wishful thinking. There's no way to know that what is in the stories has any basis in reality. The reports on early first century Nazareth (I've linked to them before and the one was just completed a few months ago) show it was a simple farm and not a town of any sort. So no "jesus" did anything there no matter what the stories say. You must not have read the file I linked to or you would have understood that the stories you're reading contain a rather large bias.

 

mwc

[Badger]

And he was unimpressed by the Jerusalem church. It's equally likely the creed didn't originate there.

Unimpressed?

 

So he claims he got his gospel via revelation and that he went from Damascus to Arabia and only went to Jerusalem after three years. He also states that the churches in Jerusalem only knew of his reputation and did not know him by his face. So he had no activities in that region.

He says explicitly he visited in Jerusalem, and saw Peter and James, before the verse 22. And there Paul only says he was unknown "to the churches of Judea."

 

It seems unlikely that he would get this prototype version from Cephas or James that has only one possible piece of "correct" information within it (an appearance to James that can't be verified...and Paul can simply add himself to the end of the list of course). We're still dealing with the same issue(s) that I mentioned before. Multiple versions or a changing version.

But that issue is not relevant. We are not trying to find out which of those easter stories is the correct one.

 

There's no way to know that what is in the stories has any basis in reality.

Are you serious? How can we know if anything in history is true?

 

This means nothing

Of course it means. As you admit there was wide variety of appearance stories.

 

The reports on early first century Nazareth (I've linked to them before and the one was just completed a few months ago) show it was a simple farm and not a town of any sort. So no "jesus" did anything there no matter what the stories say.

How can you trust on those reports? Nazareth was a hamlet according to reports.

 

You must not have read the file I linked to or you would have understood that the stories you're reading contain a rather large bias.

I do know they are biased. History is always that. And no, I didn't read since it didn't work. Nothing there.

[Ouroboros]

There's no way to know that what is in the stories has any basis in reality.

Are you serious? How can we know if anything in history is true?

That's the difference between History and Science. Science can be replicated, while History is a matter of probability. We take things from history as true based on the chances of it being true and multiple sources of evidence, but still, a historian must keep the door open to doubt. Over time, our knowledge of history changes. Some people we thought were real in history sometimes found out to be complete or partial fabrications. Plato's mid and late work doesn't report Socrates at all. Even if Socrates was the progenitor of much of what Plato thought, Plato is using Socrates as the protagonist for his own ideas. Probably only the early work of Plato was real stories or at least based on Socrates thoughts and ideas.

 

What I'm saying is that History as a science, isn't like other sciences where you can find out the "Absolute Truth" of something. It is a puzzle, where the image is fuzzy, and sometimes we put the wrong pieces in a place, and when we change to another piece we know think is the right one, the total picture also changes.

[Badger]

I agree with that HanSolo. Well said. My point is that there are methods and criteria we can use to determine what happened in the past.

[Looking4Answers]

My point is that there are methods and criteria we can use to determine what happened in the past.

 

Your sentence would be better accepted, I think, if it read this way:

 

My point is that there are methods and criteria we can use to determine what we believe happened in the past.

 

As Hans pointed out, history is fluid. As we discover this, that or the other, we have to re-examine what we thought we knew as the past. As is often the case, we discover that we have been wrong. So, no, we cannot 100% determine what happened in the past. We can only have a fairly decent idea (in some cases) and even then we may be 100% wrong.

 

However, I find your statement interesting. Wasn't it you that said it was wrong to use our modern methods of criteria for determining the historicity of something when it comes to the Bible (such as the Gospels and Acts)?