Reserection "historical Reality"

[Badger]

You're missing the point. Because that is exactly my point that when you "assume" something, then it isn't math. Hence it isn't clear, fixed, sure, true, or any other adjective that describe a certainty beyond doubt.

Did I said it is "beyond doubt?" No, I didn't.

 

The assumption is that Paul's description is some kind of certain evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but it isn't since it's an assumption. That's the idea of assumptions. To not to be definitive.

Lüdemann didn't claim or even assume this passage is certain evidence for the resurrection. Actually, he wasn't talking about the resurrection at all.

 

Or put it another way, they are making inductive inferences, and the receiver of said inference can only accept it based on the fundamental arguments behind them, which are flawed.

What's the problem? 100% certainty is beyond the reach of historical method.

 

Which arguments "behind them" (behind what?) are flawed?

[Badger]

Okay, so Paul's experience is NOT the main evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. So what is then?

1 Corinthians 15:3-7

 

Transformed to what? A better DNA? Different protons? Higher order super-strings? Are you saying that it is your physical body that is transformed? Does that mean that it's important to save all your bones in a bag as some cultures used to do (or maybe still)? Does this rule out cremation?

Interesting questions, but they do not belong under this topic.

[Badger]

1 Cor 15:3-8 is evidence that a creed existed which revolved around a resurrected god-man.

The existence of a creed doesn't prove that the premise of the creed is true and actually happened

The existence of the creed shows the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. E. P. Sanders says, "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact." (The Historical Figure of Jesus) Similarly Bart Ehrman explains that, "Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution." (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium)

 

The details of the creed also conflict with the Book of Acts which states that there were only about 120 believers at the time Jesus ascended, rather than 500+.

There is no conflict whatsoever.

 

We have a second-hand report of alleged eyewitnesses, provided by a man called Paul.

Paul also says he received his gospel from no man, but was instructed by revelation.

We are not talking about "Paul's gospel" here, but a piece of tradition recorded in 1 Corinthians 15 that Paul had received.

The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb

historesai

(1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic. The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16). (G. Habermas,

Experiences of the Risen Jesus

)

None of those confirmations come from outside the cult.

This doesn't change the fact that the historicity of Jesus' resurrection can be established using the same criteria used by Jesus Seminar to establish the authenticity of the saying of Jesus. Moreover, we have early eyewitness testimony, testimony from a former enemy, and Jesus' post mortem appearances are multiple attested.

 

Proof for the resurrection comes straight from the New Testament.

I have based my case for the resurrection on such historical facts that are accepted by large majority of scholars. If by "proof" you mean these facts, then you're right: they come mainly from the NT.

 

The New Testament documents are the product of clerical decisions, specifically councils of men.

No, they are not. NT documents are written somewhere in 1st Century. Gospels are anonymous, and 7 of the 13 Pauline books are unanimously accepted as being authored by Paul.

[Badger]

And in Paul's case I think he was exhausted, irritated for chasing this Jewish heretic cult, and perhaps lack of food, sleep, and liquids. It can cause states of delirium.

How realistic it is that "state of delirium" cause such a radical change Paul had? And what about those others who had experiences prio to Paul, including James, who wasn't originally one of Jesus' followers?

 

I think what happened with the resurrection of Jesus was that one or two of the followers were so disappointed in the death of their leader, so they wanted to see Jesus alive again. In their despair they got delusional and had a vision. Then the other disciples felt they were left out, and of course they couldn't be one of those who did not see Jesus, so some of them faked it, because they didn't want to lose their position as a "true" disciple, and some maybe even had the same mass-hypnotic vision.

A rare attempt suggesting that collective hallucinations are possible, without any application to Jesus' resurrection, is made by Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones. They point to phenomena such as claimed sightings of the virgin Mary and other accompanying reports from groups of people. In cases like these, "expectation" and "emotional excitement" are "a prerequisite for collective hallucinations." In such groups we see the "emotional contagion that so often takes place in crowds moved by strong emotions... " (Gary Habermas,

Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection

)

The problem here is that "all indications are that Jesus' disciples would exhibition the very opposite emotions from what Zusne and Jones convey as the necessary requirement." (Habermas) This is exactly what you also recognized; the disciples were disappointed and desperated. Other problems exist as well. It is not hallucination versus resurrection; rather, it is multiple hallucinations, to different goups and various individuals in different places and different times, versus resurrection. According to Habermas, "psychologists dispute the reality of such occurrences", that is, collective hallucinations. The hallucination theory does not explain Jesus' emty tomb, the radical transformation of those who had experience (even to the point of being quite willing to die for their faith), conversion of James and Paul, and it hardly explain the beginning of the resurrection faith.

[mwc]

The existence of the creed shows the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. E. P. Sanders says, "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact." (The Historical Figure of Jesus) Similarly Bart Ehrman explains that, "Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution." (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium)

Quotes are fun. Especially when lacking proper context...

 

"

That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact.

What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know. - E. P. Sanders"

 

Should we say then that Christianity began with Jesus' death? This too may contain some element of truth, but it also is problematic. For if Jesus had died and no one had come to believe that he had been raised from the dead, then his death would perhaps have been seen as yet another tragic incident in a long history of tragedies experienced by the Jewish people, as the death of yet another prophet of God, another holy man dedicated to proclaiming God's will to his people. But it would not have been recognized as an act of God for the salvation of the world, and a new religion would probably not have emerged as a result.

 

Did Christianity begin then with Jesus' resurrection? I have already shown why historians would have difficulty making this judgment—— since it would require them to subscribe to faith in the miraculous working of God. Yet even if historians were able to speak of the resurrection as a historically probable event, it could not, in and of itself, be considered the beginning of Christianity. For Christianity is not the resurrection of Jesus, but the belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.

We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. My point is that for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in his resurrection. - Bart Ehrman

 

It almost looked like these two guys supported the idea of a resurrection or something. But they believe that someone else believed in it. And don't we all?

 

mwc

[Badger]

It almost looked like these two guys supported the idea of a resurrection or something. But they believe that someone else believed in it.

I didn't use these quotations to support the resurrection, but the fact, that the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. That's exactly what they, and many other scholars, affirms.

[Vigile]

It almost looked like these two guys supported the idea of a resurrection or something. But they believe that someone else believed in it.

I didn't use these quotations to support the resurrection, but the fact, that the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. That's exactly what they, and many other scholars, affirms.

 

And history has proven that no one ever changes their lives based on false assumptions and false perceptions so it must be true.

 

How realistic it is that "state of delirium" cause such a radical change Paul had?

 

Quite. My ex sister in law even ran away from my brother and lived homeless with a self proclaimed prophet for 6 months until her father tracked her down using a PI. Your understanding of human behavior seems rather shallow.

 

In Jonestown they drank Koolaid. Alien worshipers in San Diego took pills. Fanatics worldwide strap bombs to their chests. Heck, the list is too long and exhaustive to write about here.

 

I have to admit it's difficult for me to take you seriously when you make these kind of claims.

[Vigile]

And on the subject of Paul, the guy was clearly not living a peace filled life. If he wasn't such an asshole I might pity him for the self deluded torment he suffered. It really sucks living with the belief that biological impulses are sinful and not being able to do anything about them just the same.

[mwc]

I didn't use these quotations to support the resurrection, but the fact, that the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. That's exactly what they, and many other scholars, affirms.

Sanders states that they had "resurrection experiences" (contextually I can't say he means by that) and further he cannot say what triggered those experiences.

 

I had to search elsewhere for more info from the author:

 

Paul, that is, thought of the resurrected Jesus neither as a corpse which had regained the ability to breathe and walk nor as a ghost. He regarded Jesus as 'first fruits' of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20) and thought that all Christians would become like him. He denied that the resurrected body would be the 'natural' body, but maintained that it would be a 'spiritual' body (1 Cor. 15:44-6). 'Not a natural body' excludes a walking corpse, while 'spiritual body' excludes a ghost (which would be called in Greek simply a 'spirit', pneuma). Positively, there would be continuity between the ordinary and the resurrected person, as there was in the case of Jesus. To express this, Paul used the simile of a seed, which, when planted, is in one form, but when grown, in another (1 Cor. 15:36-38).

 

E.P. Sanders, Paul, at 29.

This view of Paul isn't too far removed from my own after having looked over this portion his letter. But what does this mean? What did the people actually see if not a human and not a "ghost?" Something else. And I can't imagine what. I'm fairly certain he never says (but I could be wrong).

 

So "jesus" didn't come back to life as it were but he was a seed. He was planted. And he grew into a plant. When you look for the seed at the base of the plant what do you find? The seed is gone. You have something else in its place. A new thing. That's why the tomb is empty for Paul. The "jesus seed" had become the new thing.

 

The other quote affirms that historians acknowledge that the people who believe that had the experience wrote down that they believe they had the experience. That's not really much of an affirmation of the event but an affirmation that someone recorded something and it is acknowledged as such. I also acknowledge that someone wrote down in the various gospels, and even Paul, that the believe they saw a "resurrected" body. That doesn't really amount to much when you think about it. Even if you find thousands more to do what I just did you really didn't accomplish much.

 

mwc

[Skankboy]

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the gospels weren't necessarily written by the supposed eyewitnessess to begin with.

 

If I tell a story about how somebody's life was changed by a miraculous event, that doesn't necessarily mean it actually happened the way I say it did.

[Ouroboros]

You're missing the point. Because that is exactly my point that when you "assume" something, then it isn't math. Hence it isn't clear, fixed, sure, true, or any other adjective that describe a certainty beyond doubt.

Did I said it is "beyond doubt?" No, I didn't.

 

The assumption is that Paul's description is some kind of certain evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but it isn't since it's an assumption. That's the idea of assumptions. To not to be definitive.

Lüdemann didn't claim or even assume this passage is certain evidence for the resurrection. Actually, he wasn't talking about the resurrection at all.

Good. That's our stand point here, that the resurrection as a historical reality can be doubted. Glad that you agree to that.

 

Or put it another way, they are making inductive inferences, and the receiver of said inference can only accept it based on the fundamental arguments behind them, which are flawed.

What's the problem? 100% certainty is beyond the reach of historical method.

 

Which arguments "behind them" (behind what?) are flawed?

My impression was that you were arguing the position that the resurrection was proven somehow and a fact. My bad. But since you admit that the resurrection is not proven, and you admit that it is not a fact, then I guess we're on the same side.

 

Okay, so Paul's experience is NOT the main evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. So what is then?

1 Corinthians 15:3-7

It's the main evidence, but it's a bad evidence and doesn't prove that Jesus was resurrected. You just admitted it's not a proof without doubt.

[Ouroboros]

And in Paul's case I think he was exhausted, irritated for chasing this Jewish heretic cult, and perhaps lack of food, sleep, and liquids. It can cause states of delirium.

How realistic it is that "state of delirium" cause such a radical change Paul had? And what about those others who had experiences prio to Paul, including James, who wasn't originally one of Jesus' followers?

It happens all the time. The people who see UFOs and have contact of third degree with aliens can't be wrong either, according to your argument. People who see Virgin Mary must all be right also, and Mary is showing herself to people and they can pray to her for healing. But you really don't believe what these two groups see, do you? I'm sure you are skeptical about their visions, just like I'm skeptical about the disciples and Paul's visions.

 

I think what happened with the resurrection of Jesus was that one or two of the followers were so disappointed in the death of their leader, so they wanted to see Jesus alive again. In their despair they got delusional and had a vision. Then the other disciples felt they were left out, and of course they couldn't be one of those who did not see Jesus, so some of them faked it, because they didn't want to lose their position as a "true" disciple, and some maybe even had the same mass-hypnotic vision.

A rare attempt suggesting that collective hallucinations are possible, without any application to Jesus' resurrection, is made by Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones. They point to phenomena such as claimed sightings of the virgin Mary and other accompanying reports from groups of people. In cases like these, "expectation" and "emotional excitement" are "a prerequisite for collective hallucinations." In such groups we see the "emotional contagion that so often takes place in crowds moved by strong emotions... " (Gary Habermas,

Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection

)

The problem here is that "all indications are that Jesus' disciples would exhibition the very opposite emotions from what Zusne and Jones convey as the necessary requirement." (Habermas) This is exactly what you also recognized; the disciples were disappointed and desperated. Other problems exist as well. It is not hallucination versus resurrection; rather, it is multiple hallucinations, to different goups and various individuals in different places and different times, versus resurrection. According to Habermas, "psychologists dispute the reality of such occurrences", that is, collective hallucinations. The hallucination theory does not explain Jesus' emty tomb, the radical transformation of those who had experience (even to the point of being quite willing to die for their faith), conversion of James and Paul, and it hardly explain the beginning of the resurrection faith.

Depends on the sequence of events, and I have seen people do it. So I guess Habermas is wrong about what really can happen. It's only his opinion about what he thinks psychologists thinks about it.

 

And here's a quote from Wiki about N-Rays:

In 1903, Blondlot, a distinguished physicist who was one of 8 physicists who were corresponding members of the French Academy of Science[1] announced his discovery while working at the University of Nancy atempting to polarize X-rays. He had perceived changes in the brightness of an electric spark in a spark gap placed in an X-ray beam which he photographed and he later attributed to the novel form of radiation, naming it the N-ray for the University of Nancy.[2] Blondlot, Augustin Charpentier, Arsène d'Arsonval and approximately 120 other scientists in 300 published articles[1] claimed to be able to detect N rays emanating from most substances, including the human body with the peculiar exception that they were not emitted by green wood and some treated metals.[3] Most researchers of the subject at the time used the perceived light of a dim phosphorescent surface as "detectors", although work in the period clearly showed the change in brightness to be a physiological phenomenon rather than some actual change in the level of illumination.[4] Physicists Gustave le Bon and P. Audollet and spiritualist (Phrenologist?) Carl Huter even claimed the discovery as their own,[5] leading to a commission of the Académie des sciences to decide priority.[6]

120 scientists claimed to be able to detect the N-Rays. But later it was proven they didn't exist. This... is taken from real events, in real history, and it happened... for real. Mass delusion. Documented. Fact. These scientists believed they saw the how the N-Rays changed. They were mistaken. It's a matter of being biased for the experience. They expected to see it, and they saw it.

 

People who get dehydrated and have lack of sleep also have these kinds of delirious states. I've said it now three or four times. People can put themselves into a mode of perception where they can have delusions. If the disciples were praying to God for guidance after Jesus death, and maybe even fasted, and no sleep, yeah, you can get mass-delusions going. And the peer pressure for those who didn't is strong enough for them to say they saw it too, even if they did not. That is documented as one of those pesky human traits which aren't so good. We are, as humans, allowing ourselves to be fooled.

 

So if 150 modern scientists can be fooled, what about 12 uneducated fishermen 2,000 years ago?

 

---

 

Here's a list of interesting mass-delusions in the past: Mass Delusions and Hysterias

 

I really like this one:

Lille, France, 1639

Mackay (1852, 539-540) reports that in 1639 at an all-girls' school in Lille, France, fifty pupils were convinced by their overzealous teacher that they were under Satanic influence. Antoinette Bourgignon had the children believing that "little black angels" were flying about their heads, and that the Devil's imps were everywhere. Soon, each of the students confessed to witchcraft, flying on broomsticks and even eating baby flesh. The students came close to being burned at the stake but were spared when blame shifted to the headmistress, who escaped at the last minute. The episode occurred near the end of the Continental European witch mania of 1400 to 1650, when at least 200,000 people were executed following allegations of witchcraft.

Granted, these were kids, but I don't think uneducated fishermen would be of any higher level of critical thinking than a kid in the 17th century.

 

Or this one:

"Miracle" in Puerto Rico, 1953

At 11 a.m. on May 25, 1953, an estimated 150,000 people converged on a well at Rincorn, Puerto Rico, to await the appearance of the Virgin Mary as predicted by seven local children. Over the next six hours, a team of sociologists led by Melvin Tumin and Arnold Feldman (1955) mingled in the crowd conducting interviews. During this period, some people reported seeing colored rings encircling the Sun, and a silhouette of the Virgin in the clouds, while others experienced healings, and a general sense of well-being. Others neither saw nor experienced anything extraordinary. A media frenzy preceded the event, and a local mayor enthusiastically organized the visionaries to lead throngs of pilgrims in mass prayers and processions. Tumin and Feldman found that the majority of pilgrims believed in the authenticity of the children's claim, and were seeking cures for conditions that physicians had deemed incurable. Various ambiguous objects in the immediate surroundings (clouds, trees, etc.) mirrored the hopeful and expectant religious state of mind of many participants.

I guess we all should start praying to the Virgin Mary. After all, 150,000 witnesses beats 513 (12+500+1) any time.

 

And this one is good too:

First Flying Saucer Wave, 1947

On June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold was piloting his private plane near the Cascade mountains in Washington state when he saw what appeared to be nine glittering objects flying in echelon-like formation near Mount Rainier. He kept the objects in sight for about three minutes before they traveled south over Mount Adams and were lost to view (Arnold 1950; Arnold and Palmer 1952; Gardner 1988; Clark 1998, 139-143).

 

Worried that he may have observed guided missiles from a foreign power, Arnold eventually flew to Pendleton, Oregon, where he tried reporting what he saw to the FBI office there. But the office was closed, so he went to the offices of The East Oregonian newspaper. After listening to Arnold's story, journalist Bill Bequette produced a report for the Associated Press. It is notable that at this point, Arnold had described the objects as crescent-shaped, referring only to their movement as "like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water" (Gardner 1957, 56; Story 1980, 25; Sachs 1980, 207-208). However, the Associated Press account describing Arnold's "saucers" appeared in over 150 newspapers.

 

The AP report filed by Bequette was the proto-article from which the term "flying saucer" was created by headline writers on June 25 and 26, 1947 (Strentz 1970). Of key import was Bequette's use of the term "saucer-like" in describing Arnold's sighting. Bequette's use of the word "saucer" provided a motif for the worldwide wave of flying saucer sightings during the summer of 1947, and other waves since. There are a few scattered historical references to disc-shaped objects, but no consistent pattern emerges until 1947, with Arnold's sighting. There have only been a handful of occasions prior to 1947 that a witness has actually used the word "saucer" to describe mysterious aerial objects. Hence, the global 1947 flying saucer wave can be regarded as a media-generated collective delusion unique to the twentieth century.

What's that word again? "Collective delusion?" Ah, that can't be. It doesn't exists according to your religious theologians. Well, this means it 1947 never happened. All the papers still in existence must be some large scale atheist conspiracy to build up the argument for collective delusions. How else can we explain it?

[Badger]

It's the main evidence, but it's a bad evidence and doesn't prove that Jesus was resurrected. You just admitted it's not a proof without doubt.

You're right; it does not in itself prove that Jesus was raised from the death. I wouldn't say it's bad evidence, however. It does prove that within five years of the crucifixion different individuals and groups of people had experiences which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. This is one of those "historical facts" I listed on my first post. If one accept the hallucination hypothesis, he must cojoin some other hypothesis to explain the empty tomb. He must also believe that people experienced same kind of hallucination on multiple occasions and under various circumstances, including James and later Paul, who were not Jesus' followers. And how does this hypothesis explain the resurrection faith?

[Vigile]

If one accept the hallucination hypothesis, he must cojoin some other hypothesis to explain the empty tomb

 

Where is your logic man? This makes no sense at all. There was no empty tomb and the story of all those who saw Jesus risen is 3rd, 4th hand knowledge squared. The first account of Jesus was some 40 odd years after his supposed death. Stories grow starting with on the spot eye witness accounts, which are proven to be flawed to a degree. What do you think happens when a story gets passed down for 40-120 years?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVVmMRJXjn4

[centauri]

1 Cor 15:3-8 is evidence that a creed existed which revolved around a resurrected god-man.

The existence of a creed doesn't prove that the premise of the creed is true and actually happened

 

Badger:

The existence of the creed shows the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. E. P. Sanders says, "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact."

 

This is in line with what I wrote.

Perceptions don't make an event real or historical.

 

The details of the creed also conflict with the Book of Acts which states that there were only about 120 believers at the time Jesus ascended, rather than 500+.

 

There is no conflict whatsoever.

 

There is if you take Acts seriously, but perhaps you don't.

That's ok, you don't have to if you don't want to.

 

We have a second-hand report of alleged eyewitnesses, provided by a man called Paul.

Paul also says he received his gospel from no man, but was instructed by revelation.

 

We are not talking about "Paul's gospel" here, but a piece of tradition recorded in 1 Corinthians 15 that Paul had received.

 

Yes, we are talking about Paul's gospel, as dictated to him through revelation because he didn't get it from other men.

Gal 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

Paul identifies that it is his gospel that he preaches.

He even calls it "my gospel".

2 Tim 2:8

Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

 

None of those confirmations come from outside the cult.

 

This doesn't change the fact that the historicity of Jesus' resurrection can be established using the same criteria used by Jesus Seminar to establish the authenticity of the saying of Jesus. Moreover, we have early eyewitness testimony, testimony from a former enemy, and Jesus' post mortem appearances are multiple attested.

 

OK, I see.

As long as it appears in cult writings and has an industry of scholars to endorse it as reliable, it should be considered historically factual.

That's certainly an interesting way to establish history.

The cult that has the largest advertising agency will have the best chance of having its propaganda declared as representing historical fact.

Of course, the stories and the testimony could be highly embellished, which would taint the "facts", but that's not something to be concerned about.

 

Proof for the resurrection comes straight from the New Testament.

 

I have based my case for the resurrection on such historical facts that are accepted by large majority of scholars. If by "proof" you mean these facts, then you're right: they come mainly from the NT.

 

The lesson I've learned is that if enough scholars think something is a fact, then it is a fact.

Sheer weight of perception makes it so.

 

The New Testament documents are the product of clerical decisions, specifically councils of men.

 

No, they are not. NT documents are written somewhere in 1st Century. Gospels are anonymous, and 7 of the 13 Pauline books are unanimously accepted as being authored by Paul.

 

I should have written that the New Testament document is the product, instead of "documents are the product".

There was no offical New Testament until it was voted into being by the Church.

The decision to include various documents in something called the "New Testament" was reached hundreds of years after the alleged resurrection was supposed to have taken place.

The prime evidence cited as proof for the resurrection is taken from the New Testament, which was created by men that were not witnesses to the resurrection. The proof is layer upon layer of officially approved cult tradition.

[Ouroboros]

It's the main evidence, but it's a bad evidence and doesn't prove that Jesus was resurrected. You just admitted it's not a proof without doubt.

You're right; it does not in itself prove that Jesus was raised from the death. I wouldn't say it's bad evidence, however. It does prove that within five years of the crucifixion different individuals and groups of people had experiences which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. This is one of those "historical facts" I listed on my first post. If one accept the hallucination hypothesis, he must cojoin some other hypothesis to explain the empty tomb. He must also believe that people experienced same kind of hallucination on multiple occasions and under various circumstances, including James and later Paul, who were not Jesus' followers. And how does this hypothesis explain the resurrection faith?

Well, I think we're kind of approaching some kind of middle ground, which is good.

 

Regarding the tomb, it's kind of hard to say how that story went since the different accounts give different descriptions. Was it one woman or a group of women who saw the empty tomb? Was it no angel, just Jesus, one angel, or two angels there? And so on. Perhaps there was one person who saw an empty tomb, and it was told and expanded upon, and perhaps that person was in on some scheme. It's hard to say, since the accounts are way too different. And the whole idea of the car-crash accident and different accounts is a bit of a stretch, because the differences in a car-crash scenario is usually based on people who didn't see the accident directly, or it happened so fast so they can't really recall the details. In the tomb story they had time to think, and see, and reflect, and know what really happened, and it's more likely the stories would coalesce to one common and unified idea rather than keep on splitting up into multiple. Like the car-crash witnesses tend to adjust their recollections and build false-memories based on the news reports and the other witnesses reports, so they become a lot more similar, and sometimes even have wrong information in them. So, I don't know. We can't really say how it started, or who started it.

 

And secondly, we don't know if they had the exact same experience or visions of Jesus. Maybe one or two had hallucinations. And then the third and fourth person saw a light, and called it a vision of Jesus. And then a couple more didn't want to be left out, so they claimed (lied) that they too saw Jesus. (I've experienced this in larger groups of religious fundamentalism. No one wants to be left out, and allow themselves to stretch the truth to fit in. And there are experiments, in psychiatry, that shows that this can happen.)

 

If people are willing to die for the belief that Mohammad saw an angel, 1,500 years after the event, it doesn't surprise me at all that people attach to crazy beliefs and stick to them as truths.

[Badger]

There was no empty tomb and the story of all those who saw Jesus risen is 3rd, 4th hand knowledge squared.

If there was absolutely no empty tomb, then why a fairly strong majority (approx. 75 %) of those scholars who address the subject accept it as a historical fact? For example, historian Michael Grant admits that, "If we apply the same sort of citeria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessiate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty." (Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels)

[Ouroboros]

There was no empty tomb and the story of all those who saw Jesus risen is 3rd, 4th hand knowledge squared.

If there was absolutely no empty tomb, then why a fairly strong majority (approx. 75 %) of those scholars who address the subject accept it as a historical fact? For example, historian Michael Grant admits that, "If we apply the same sort of citeria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessiate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty." (Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels)

Okay, but which tomb was empty? Do we have convincing documentation that they went to the right tomb? Do we know for sure that the no/one/two angels really were there?

 

So are you saying that Apollonius of Tyana did indeed do miracles too? Considering the somewhat novelistic story written by Philostratus, Apollonius did exist, and there can't be any smoke without a fire...

[Vigile]

If there was absolutely no empty tomb, then why a fairly strong majority (approx. 75 %) of those scholars who address the subject accept it as a historical fact?

 

I dunno... Perhaps because they are biased?

 

The problem with biblical scholars, as opposed to say historians specializing in Aztec culture, Greek culture, et al, is that many of them tend to be believers as well as historians. Believers by their own definition cannot be entirely objective. Of course you could supply circular logic here that says they believe because what they have uncovered is compelling, but this does not resolve their bias.

 

As I pointed out, without any kind of contemporary evidence whatsoever, there is no way they can ascertain whether or not there was a tomb containing Jesus and that it was later empty.

 

History is generally based on contemporary records. History based on hearsay can merely be a hypothesis and cannot be taken as fact. If you want to say that historians adhere to a hypotheses that's fine, but it's certainly nothing you would want to dedicate your life to. At least I wouldn't.

[bdp]

If there was an empty tomb that only means that there was an empty tomb. The gospels themselves allude to stories of the body being stolen; the body might also never have been put there, or there may never have been a body to put there.

[Badger]

There is if you take Acts seriously, but perhaps you don't.

That's ok, you don't have to if you don't want to.

There is conflict only if one suppose that 1 Cor and Acts refers to the same event.

 

Yes, we are talking about Paul's gospel, as dictated to him through revelation because he didn't get it from other men.

No, we're not talking about that; at least I'm not. In Galatians 1 Paul is defending his apostleship and authority, that were undermined by the argument that he was inferior to the earlier apostles. Paul have two main points here, "First, it [the gospel] was received by revelation (1:11-12). Thus its source was divine, not human. Second, it was independent of the Jerusalem apostles (1:13–2:21)—again, stressing its divine roots." (D. Wallace. Galatians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline) He then asserts, in verse 18, that not until "after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days." It is probably during this visit when Paul received the material recorded in 1 Corinthians 15.

 

The cult that has the largest advertising agency will have the best chance of having its propaganda declared as representing historical fact.

Which of those facts I listed in my first post you deny, and why?

 

The lesson I've learned is that if enough scholars think something is a fact, then it is a fact.

That's not what I'm arguing.

 

The prime evidence cited as proof for the resurrection is taken from the New Testament, which was created by men that were not witnesses to the resurrection.

What is that "prime evidence?" And where do you forget Paul who was witness to risen Jesus?

[centauri]

There is if you take Acts seriously, but perhaps you don't.

That's ok, you don't have to if you don't want to.

 

Badger:

There is conflict only if one suppose that 1 Cor and Acts refers to the same event.

 

When did the event of over 500 believers seeing Jesus at the same time take place?

At this event, did Jesus appear in the flesh or was it in a vision experienced by over 500 believers?

 

Yes, we are talking about Paul's gospel, as dictated to him through revelation because he didn't get it from other men.

 

No, we're not talking about that; at least I'm not. In Galatians 1 Paul is defending his apostleship and authority, that were undermined by the argument that he was inferior to the earlier apostles. Paul have two main points here, "First, it [the gospel] was received by revelation (1:11-12). Thus its source was divine, not human. Second, it was independent of the Jerusalem apostles (1:13–2:21)—again, stressing its divine roots." (D. Wallace. Galatians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline) He then asserts, in verse 18, that not until "after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days." It is probably during this visit when Paul received the material recorded in 1 Corinthians 15.

 

So did Paul receive the most important elements of his Gospel as given in 1 Cor 15 from men or by revelation?

Why does Paul refer to his message as "my gospel"?

 

The cult that has the largest advertising agency will have the best chance of having its propaganda declared as representing historical fact.

 

Which of those facts I listed in my first post you deny, and why?

 

I'm not sure how you establish "Jesus" being crucified and buried in a tomb as factual.

Are you referring to a generic Jesus character or a specific individual?

Would the Sanhedrin have conducted a trial on Passover and sentenced a Jew to death on that day?

Just curious, do you believe the story about dead people being raised to life when "Jesus" died?

If you regard the crucifixion and burial as factual, do the specifics of these two events need to be considered for reliablity or are the crucifixion and burial simply themes that stand alone?

 

The prime evidence cited as proof for the resurrection is taken from the New Testament, which was created by men that were not witnesses to the resurrection.

 

What is that "prime evidence?" And where do you forget Paul who was witness to risen Jesus?

 

Well, you gave me the impression that 1 Cor 15 was prime evidence for the resurrection, and it's contained in the New Testament.

This is what you posted earlier when someone asked about eyewitness testimony:

Third, without question, the most critically-respected witness for Jesus' resurrection is the apostle Paul. As Norman Perrin states, "Paul is the one witness we have whom we can interrogate." And 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the historicity of this event. Howard Clark Kee boldly asserts that Paul's testimony here "can be critically examined... just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting." For several strong reasons, most scholars who address the issue think that this testimony predates any New Testament book. Murphy-O'Connor reports that a literary analysis has produced "complete agreement” among critical scholars that "Paul introduces a quotation in v. 3b..." (G. Habermas, Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present)

 

This pretty much shouts the praises of 1 Cor 15 as superior evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was historical.

Yet, Paul never met Jesus prior to his ascension, but had visions and dreams that he assumed were direct communications from Jesus.

Didn't we plow this field earlier?

Paul's claim about Jesus appearing to him rests on argument by assertion.

Paul says so, and apparently that makes it true.

Do you maintain, as Norman Perrin does, that 1 Cor 15:3-8 is the strongest evidence that the resurrection is historical?

If so, how does 1 Cor 15:3-8, which you earlier said was a tradition, establish that tradition as factual history?

How does one interrogate Paul for his accuracy?

How exactly would the Corinthians go about validating his claims from an objective standpoint?

If Paul's visions are considered strong evidence, how about the visions of Joseph Smith?

Paul also claimed to be a salesman, who would do what was expedient to win converts.

Would Paul be above embellishing facts or making a few up to suit his agenda?

[R. S. Martin]

The Jesus Seminar, for example, dates the tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 no later than AD 33. Early dating is confirmed by such non-Christian scholars like Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman.

 

Badger, I don't know where you're getting your information. I listened to Bart Ehrman and he dates all writing about Jesus 35-65 years after the crucifixion.

 

Here are the YouTubes of Bart Ehrman's debate with William Lane Craig on the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection. He talks about his dating system in Video 3, and reiterates it in some of the following videos. No one--not even Craig, dates it as early as 33 AD.

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. 
   
7. 
   
8. 
   
9. 
   
10. 
    
11. 
    
12. 
    

[Badger]

When did the event of over 500 believers seeing Jesus at the same time take place?

Does it really matter where it happened? Of course we can speculate about it if we want, but there is no suggestion that Paul is referring to the same events describe in Acts 1. Also, contrary to your claim, the Acts doesn't say that 120 believers were present at the time Jesus ascended; you confused the Ascension and the Pentecost.

 

At this event, did Jesus appear in the flesh or was it in a vision experienced by over 500 believers?

1 Corinthians 15 says only that Jesus "appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time." The Greek word used here is οπτανομαι, meaning, to be seen or to appear.

 

So did Paul receive the most important elements of his Gospel as given in 1 Cor 15 from men or by revelation?

Why does Paul refer to his message as "my gospel"?

The linguistic data strongly suggest the material (at least verses 3b-5) is a primitive creed and, therefore, pre-dates Paul. Paul himself affirms this material is not his own but he had delivered what he had received earlier. Where he had received it not said, but according to the popular view, Paul received this material during his visit in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. Garry Habermas states, "Paul probably received this report from Peter and James while visiting Jerusalem within a few years of his conversion. The vast majority of critical scholars who answer the question place Paul's reception of this material in the mid-30s A.D. Even more skeptical scholars generally agree." (Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present) There doesn't need to be any conflic with Galatians 1, where Paul says he received his gospel by revelation.

 

I'm not sure how you establish "Jesus" being crucified and buried in a tomb as factual.

The crucifixion of Jesus is historically certain, and virtually every scholar accepts it as a fact. For example, John Dominic Crossan affirms, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography) In addition to biblical support, that is, early Christian tradition, Paul's letters and the Gospels, it is confirmed by ten non-Christian texts at least. The burial of Jesus is also an essential part of the earliest kerygma (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5; Acts 13:26-31), narrated in all four canonical Gospels, and in the Gospel of Peter. Having given an overview of the historical context and ancient funerary rites, J. B. Green concludes, "Although both Roman and Jewish practices allow for Jesus' burial (the former more by concession), one would expect in his case ignominious tratment... We have reason to believe from an historical viewpoint that his burial must have been lackluser." (The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels). Craig Evans affirms, "It is concluded that it is very probable that Jesus was buried, in keeping with Jewish customs, and was not left hanging on his cross, nor was cast into a ditch, exposed to animals." (Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus)

 

Just curious, do you believe the story about dead people being raised to life when "Jesus" died?

Not sure. It may have happened, but there is no way to prove that.

 

If you regard the crucifixion and burial as factual, do the specifics of these two events need to be considered for reliablity or are the crucifixion and burial simply themes that stand alone?

I think Green explains this issue well,

It is clear nonetheless that the later Evangelists were unwilling to leave unchanged the rather simple burian story as reported in Mark. Thus Matthew has added to his Markan sources that the linen in which Jesus' body was wrapped was clean, the tomb in which he was buried new (27:59-60). Similarly, Luke reports that it was "a tomb wherein no one had yet been laid" (23:53). Both Evangelists thereby underscore the special honor paid Jesus. John, however, far outdistances Matthew and Luke, potraying Jesus' burial as that of a king.

I don't think the specifics must be considered to be factual.

 

Yet, Paul never met Jesus prior to his ascension, but had visions and dreams.

Why Jesus could not appear to people, after the Ascension, as a kind of physical being? Moreover, Paul does not say he had visions or dreams; does he?

 

Do you maintain, as Norman Perrin does, that 1 Cor 15:3-8 is the strongest evidence that the resurrection is historical?

I believe 1 Cor 15 is rather good evidence for the resurrection, but it does not in itself prove it happened. That is, I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection simply because 1 Cor 15 says he was raised from the death.

[Badger]

I listened to Bart Ehrman and he dates all writing about Jesus 35-65 years after the crucifixion.

Ehrman is right. However, I was talking about the early tradition(s) recorded in 1 Cor 15.

Concerning the date of the creed, virtually all critical scholars agree that Paul received the tradition no later than five years after the crucifixion, with a majority holding that the material was passed on to him when he visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18-19), and a minority maintaining that the material was conveyed to him in Damascus via the community in Antioch immediately upon his conversion. (Kirk MacGregor,

1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7, and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

)