Reserection "historical Reality"

[Badger]

So you're saying you can accept a natural explanation?

To be supernaturalist doesn't mean to explain all phenomena supernaturally, as you know. But probably you mean regarding the fate of Jesus' body and the beginning of the resurrection faith; well, I may accept a natural explanation if it explains all those facts I listed better than that God raised Jesus from the death.

 

And they had those supposed visions, just like people have visions of Shiva, Thor, or ancient spirits.

In Second Temple Judaism, resurrection wasn't understood as a life after death; they didn't believe people pass directly from death to resurrection. In fact, resurrection was something that will happen some time after death, and there was some kind of intermediate state in between death and resurrection. It was life after "life after death." It is pretty obvious that the disciples weren't expecting Jesus' resurrection three day later, and I would say it is unlikely they would have change their understading of resurrection simply because of some visions (cf. Acts 12, where it is thought that Peter is dead, not alive). Interestingly enough, early Christians did not only claimed that God raised Jesus from the death, but also that he is the promised Messiah. The fact is that Jesus failed to fulfill Jewish messianic expectations; and unlike other messianic pretenders, whose principal goal was to overthrow Roman domination of Palestine and who died trying it, Jesus died on cross and came to be cursed.

[Ouroboros]

...

The male disciples were "scattered" until an unknown later time. They were looking out for themselves. It would appear they had more immediate concerns than knowing if anyone came for the body and where that body wound up. Which is exactly why someone like Joseph is needed at this point in the story. He can obtain the body and he can bury the body while the disciples are nowhere to be found.

Con artists and MLM uses a trick called "the man from another city", or "the rich man from out of town." And magicians use the planted "stranger" in the audience. Joe here fits the profile for a person in a large con.

[Ouroboros]

To be supernaturalist doesn't mean to explain all phenomena supernaturally, as you know. But probably you mean regarding the fate of Jesus' body and the beginning of the resurrection faith; well, I may accept a natural explanation if it explains all those facts I listed better than that God raised Jesus from the death.

The facts listed do not match up, so the few things that have agreement doesn't become more than the eyewitnesses seeing magicians getting shot, stabbed, or buried alive, and still alive afterward.

 

So the extraordinary claims should be taken on faith, and not evidence?

 

And they had those supposed visions, just like people have visions of Shiva, Thor, or ancient spirits.

In Second Temple Judaism, resurrection wasn't understood as a life after death; they didn't believe people pass directly from death to resurrection. In fact, resurrection was something that will happen some time after death, and there was some kind of intermediate state in between death and resurrection. It was life after "life after death." It is pretty obvious that the disciples weren't expecting Jesus' resurrection three day later, and I would say it is unlikely they would have change their understading of resurrection simply because of some visions (cf. Acts 12, where it is thought that Peter is dead, not alive). Interestingly enough, early Christians did not only claimed that God raised Jesus from the death, but also that he is the promised Messiah. The fact is that Jesus failed to fulfill Jewish messianic expectations; and unlike other messianic pretenders, whose principal goal was to overthrow Roman domination of Palestine and who died trying it, Jesus died on cross and came to be cursed.

Ok. That might be a point, but as many things in life, someone is usually first of coming up with something new. In other words, if some con artists came up with this new idea, and went through with the trick, it is not explained to be real or supernatural just because it was the first time. Someone must have come up with the wheel at some time? Right? But it doesn't make the wheel a revelation from God.

 

Since tradition was to let the body rest for three days just to avoid mistaken deaths, they would have been aware of the possibility that Jesus maybe wasn't really dead when he was put in the grave. So what made them convinced that Jesus didn't fake it? What was their evidence that Jesus was surely dead? (Besides the guard doing his little poking in the side. Which I suspect could have been tricked too.)

[Badger]

Joseph placed the body into his tomb. Joseph was a secret follower of "jesus." He came to Pilate and took that body as a secret follower of "jesus." The women knew of the location of the tomb, not because Joseph told them so they could perform "primary and secondary burial" anything, but because they followed along and watched where he put him. This was all done as quietly as possible.

You take the Gospels at face value, huh?

[Looking4Answers]

Wow. I feel completely ignored here. Whose Wheaties did I piss in?

 

J/K

 

I still want to know why the resurrected body of Jesus had wounds (pierced side, hands and feet) in the presence of Thomas (and the disciples with him) and why there were no visible wounds when Jesus met with other disciples (such as those on the road to Emmaus, Mary at the tomb the morning of the resurrection, etc).

[mwc]

You take the Gospels at face value, huh?

I took two, G.Matthew and G.John, and harmonized them to come up with that as that appeared to be what the bulk of the conversation thus far seemed to be doing. I do believe that I made note that I was do just that as well but maybe I wasn't entirely clear?

 

I then created another bit of harmonization from the remaining two in order to present an alternate picture based on what they had to say.

 

I take the gospels for what they're worth...

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

I still want to know why the resurrected body of Jesus had wounds (pierced side, hands and feet) in the presence of Thomas (and the disciples with him) and why there were no visible wounds when Jesus met with other disciples (such as those on the road to Emmaus, Mary at the tomb the morning of the resurrection, etc).

 

I think it's fascinating that they didn't recognize him. It could have been the Jesus-double, but he didn't look exactly the same, so he had to behave like Jesus, and then the "realized" it was Jesse with a new face!

[Badger]

The facts listed do not match up, so the few things that have agreement doesn't become more than the eyewitnesses seeing magicians getting shot, stabbed, or buried alive, and still alive afterward.

I haven't seen any good reason why we should assume none knew where Jesus was buried, or that none (the women, for example) could have followed what happened to Jesus' body. Instead, I gave two resons why it is likely that the location of the tomb was known. And I thought you already accepted that Jesus died and that there was some kind of post mortem appearances.

 

In other words, if some con artists came up with this new idea, and went through with the trick, it is not explained to be real or supernatural just because it was the first time.

Of course not; I have not argued such at all. I'm asking how does one explain the beginning of Christianity without reference to Jesus' resurrection? How they came to believe Jesus is not only resurrected but also the Messiah, and that a new era began in human history? And why they were willign to die as martys? The empty tomb and tangible appearances and/or meetings would explain all this. So what kind of trick it exactly was?

 

So what made them convinced that Jesus didn't fake it? What was their evidence that Jesus was surely dead?

Well, let me think.... the crucifixion at the hands of Romans perhaps?

 

(Besides the guard doing his little poking in the side. Which I suspect could have been tricked too.)

Fake-soldiers fake-poking fake-Jesus' fake-side?

[mwc]

Ok. That might be a point, but as many things in life, someone is usually first of coming up with something new.

Something new? Read here. Ignoring all the rabbinic stuff (since it comes later...but it's still interesting) there is nothing new under the sun.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Of course not; I have not argued such at all. I'm asking how does one explain the beginning of Christianity without reference to Jesus' resurrection? How they came to believe Jesus is not only resurrected but also the Messiah, and that a new era began in human history? And why they were willign to die as martys? The empty tomb and tangible appearances and/or meetings would explain all this. So what kind of trick it exactly was?

All you've said right here is "I don't have anything to say about the resurrection but what about all this other stuff?" At this point you've demonstrated nothing more than you can't argue in favor of the resurrection so those people wouldn't have done anything had it not happened therefore it must have happened.

 

How about? A story was written about thirteen guys. One supposedly died and came back to life. The others went on to preach his story. They aren't alive anymore but they left this story with us. We are their disciples and we maintain their legacy. Do you want to be with a group that has a known legacy or not? If so you will be expected to follow our rules and pass along this story. And so on.

 

It's pretty simple. And it still works today. Not one single shred of evidence is required. No one and no thing from the supposed incidents can be talked with or investigated and yet it matters not. Nothing need be true. Not a single word.

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

Of course not; I have not argued such at all. I'm asking how does one explain the beginning of Christianity without reference to Jesus' resurrection? How they came to believe Jesus is not only resurrected but also the Messiah, and that a new era began in human history? And why they were willign to die as martys? The empty tomb and tangible appearances and/or meetings would explain all this. So what kind of trick it exactly was?

 

You are assuming that the story is even true, which it may not be. It could be nothing more than stories that were passed around for decades before being written down. And like most hand-me-down stories, they tend to grow as time goes on, with each person adding their own particular flare to the story:

 

- Jesus was a teacher

- Jesus was a teacher and a healer

- Jesus was a teacher and a healer who even raised the dead

- Jesus was a teacher and a healer who even raised the dead and was raised from the dead himself

- Jesus was a teacher and a healer who even raised the dead and was raised from the dead himself because he was god

 

Obviously I made all that up, but it shows how a story can progress over time.

 

I'm asking how does one explain the beginning of Christianity without reference to Jesus' resurrection?

 

The same way any other faith begins. Buddhism starts off with the story and teachings being told and retold. The followers of the Greek gods learned of their faith the same way. The Muslims begin with the retelling of their prophet's teachings. And when you add violence into the mix (i.e. believe or die) then the faith tends to spread pretty quickly. Christianity had something massive behind it: the Roman empire. Once the empire embraced the faith, it spread like wildfire ... typically at the edge of the sword!

 

Oh, and if you are going to bring up all those years beforehand, when Rome persecuted the Christian faith and yet it flourished, then you would be ignoring that fact that many other faiths were also persecuted by Rome and likewise flourished. Christianity was not the only thorn in Rome's side. There were a variety of mystery religions as well, some of which still are around today.

 

How they came to believe Jesus is not only resurrected but also the Messiah, and that a new era began in human history?

 

There was no concept that a new era had began in human history until the Catholic church made a new calendar making it so. Ancient calendars would start recording the year from the time when the new king or emperor would ascend to the throne. Since the Catholic church viewed Jesus as the true and ultimate king, they came up with a calendar that supposedly started with his birth. But people did not really see a new era in human history coming into existence. In fact, up until the Roman empire embraced the Christian faith, very few really cared.

 

And why they were willign to die as martys?

 

Well, people were willing to die as martyrs for any of a variety of reasons. It was not like the Romans were only after the Christians (despite what the Christians might think). Secondly, the only real documents we have of the early martyrs were books like Martyr's Mirror and Foxes Book of Martyrs, both of which were written in the 1600's ... hundreds upon hundreds of years after the events they report on. There is little evidence that things happened as reported in these types of books and, frankly, the authors of these books had a point they were trying to make ... namely they were protesting the Catholic church and were attempting to prove a straight line of faith from the disciples to themselves while bypassing the Catholic church. So these books are very suspect to begin with. In other words, we really don't know the extent of martyrs from that time.

 

In any case, you might was well ask the modern day Muslims the same question. Why are they so willing to become martyrs? Certainly you don't consider their faith valid just because they are willing to rush off to the deaths for it, do you?

 

The empty tomb and tangible appearances and/or meetings would explain all this.

 

No, it would not necessarily explain all this. In fact, there are a myriad of other reasons that can be supposed as to why the religion is even here today and none of them have to deal with the resurrection being a real event.

[Badger]

How do we know that he was a real, living being and not just the figment of some Gospel writer's imagination? And even if he was a real, living being, how do we know for a fact that he did any of the things that he did (i.e. help bury the body of Jesus) or said any of the things that he supposedly said (i.e. John chapter 3, etc)? The very presence of this prominent member of the Sanhedrin cannot be proven at all. As a result, it does not strongly suggest anything.

I gave two reasons to support my claim (that the location was known), and one of them was Joseph the Arimathea. The second was the common practise, which alone, I think, is enought to prove that they were interested to bury people so that the location could be known even several months later when the flesh had wasted away.

[Ouroboros]

I haven't seen any good reason why we should assume none knew where Jesus was buried, or that none (the women, for example) could have followed what happened to Jesus' body. Instead, I gave two resons why it is likely that the location of the tomb was known. And I thought you already accepted that Jesus died and that there was some kind of post mortem appearances.

It's hard to know what to really think about the story. There's too many ways it could have been played for it to be accepted as some undeniable fact. I think it's possible that the cult had a leader, who was killed, and for one or another reason they either made up the resurrection, or a couple of the ones in the inner circle intentionally set it up, or perhaps it was a misunderstanding or mixup. Hard to say. And the appearance I attribute to religious fanaticism, lack of food or sleep, and perhaps they had to keep the idea alive or lose their identity from the last couple of years of investing. It happens all the time.

 

Within 50 years from now I suspect we will see Raelians losing lives because of persecution. Which means that 100 years from now, they will argue that aliens must exist and they are coming to Earth to save us, because why would someone die for a belief?

 

Let me ask you Badger, are you willing to die for your belief? If you were put into prison or in front of an execution squad, would you stand your grounds and maintain your beliefs?

 

In other words, if some con artists came up with this new idea, and went through with the trick, it is not explained to be real or supernatural just because it was the first time.

Of course not; I have not argued such at all. I'm asking how does one explain the beginning of Christianity without reference to Jesus' resurrection? How they came to believe Jesus is not only resurrected but also the Messiah, and that a new era began in human history? And why they were willign to die as martys? The empty tomb and tangible appearances and/or meetings would explain all this. So what kind of trick it exactly was?

Again, how do you explain the vast amount of people following Scientology, Raelians, Mormons, Jehovas Witness, etc? To get people to follow a belief and die for it, without any evidence, is not uncommon. Think Islam. Why would people be willing to even kill themselves to promote their religion? It must mean they really-really-really believe in what they do, doesn't it? And they do that without one shred of hard evidence. It's only belief. So how do you explain Raelians? How do you explain Scientology? Why is there hundreds of thousands of members of each one of them in such a short time? Are they true? If not, why not?

 

So what made them convinced that Jesus didn't fake it? What was their evidence that Jesus was surely dead?

Well, let me think.... the crucifixion at the hands of Romans perhaps?

Perhaps the story was embellished? Perhaps the story didn't go that way at all? Perhaps other peoples stories about other peoples stories about other peoples stories aren't really evidence? If it is, why don't they allow hearsay as evidence in a trial?

 

(Besides the guard doing his little poking in the side. Which I suspect could have been tricked too.)

Fake-soldiers fake-poking fake-Jesus' fake-side?

I know how the witchdoctors get the "evil" out of people's bodies, with blood all over the place, just sticking their hands into their stomach, and no scars or holes left behind... so yeah... tricks can be done. I've seen things fly. I've seen things be "magically" gone away. I even did a levitation trick on a co-worker once and scared the shit out of her... until I showed her how it was done.

 

Besides, I can't trust a hearsay to be trustworthy about the details in the story, especially since we can clearly see the stories are different and contradict each other. Then the details must go. Only the overall picture can be kept, which is that the group of disciples claimed that Jesus was resurrected. But then again, Scientologists claim they are getting rid of thetans and that they can feel them go. So who should I believe? That aliens created us? That we are full of thetans? Or that God only did miracles to convince followers a long time ago, but is way too busy to do anything on a personal level to prove his existence today?

[Looking4Answers]

I gave two reasons to support my claim (that the location was known), and one of them was Joseph the Arimathea. The second was the common practise, which alone, I think, is enought to prove that they were interested to bury people so that the location could be known even several months later when the flesh had wasted away.

 

I don't want to sound mean, but talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, it seems. This was already addressed by myself and others in this thread. What you present here proves nothing at all. Nothing.

 

There is no historical evidence for the existence of a Joseph of Arimathaea. We only learn of him from the Gospels and these are already suspect. So the fact that the Gospel of John tells us that Joseph placed Jesus in his tomb does not provide any evidence in light of the fact that we don't really know if this Joseph really existed. As with everything else, you are assuming that the Gospel accounts are true instead of examining them for truth.

 

Even if the tomb was known and even if Joseph was a real character that really did take the body of Jesus to his tomb, what does that prove? It does not prove the resurrection one bit. Someone could have stole the body away. Joseph himself could have done it. Supposedly there were Roman guards at the tomb, but we cannot say for sure because, again, we have no evidence for this outside of the Gospels. There are no Roman records stating that this was done, for example. In fact, the story seems quite unlikely (the one with the Roman guards supposedly guarding the tomb) because of the events that follow according to the story. The soldiers are found unconscious near the tomb and are later paid off to tell a story about what happened. This would NOT have happened in Rome. Sorry. They guards would have most assuredly have been put to death for their failure to properly guard the tomb. This, in and of itself, makes the entire story suspect.

 

The common practice you seem so fond of reminding us about proves nothing of the resurrection at all. It only proves that the writers of the story knew something about burial practices and included them in their stories. I can easily do the same things. I lived in Israel for several years. I suppose I could write a story and include some of the customs that I learned about while living there. Perhaps these included customs would make the story seem believable, but this, in and of itself, would not necessarily make the story true.

 

In any case, knowledge of where the tomb would have been does not prove a resurrection. It only proves that some people knew where a tomb was. However, it is interesting that a person as important as the Messiah would be buried, his tomb known and yet we don't know were it is today. In fact, while Helena had a church built over the supposed spot, there is much debate about whether this is the spot or not.

[Ouroboros]

Even if the tomb was known and even if Joseph was a real character that really did take the body of Jesus to his tomb, what does that prove? It does not prove the resurrection one bit. Someone could have stole the body away. Joseph himself could have done it. Supposedly there were Roman guards at the tomb, but we cannot say for sure because, again, we have no evidence for this outside of the Gospels. There are no Roman records stating that this was done, for example. In fact, the story seems quite unlikely (the one with the Roman guards supposedly guarding the tomb) because of the events that follow according to the story. The soldiers are found unconscious near the tomb and are later paid off to tell a story about what happened. This would NOT have happened in Rome. Sorry. They guards would have most assuredly have been put to death for their failure to properly guard the tomb. This, in and of itself, makes the entire story suspect.

It all builds up as a bad novel.

[Badger]

You are assuming that the story is even true, which it may not be. It could be nothing more than stories that were passed around for decades before being written down.

If you refer to the Gospels, yes, they are exactly that; but I do not assume what they say is true.

 

The same way any other faith begins.

So how it happened?

 

There was no concept that a new era had began in human history until the Catholic church made a new calendar making it so.

I wasn't talking about that, but about the Jewish belief that coming of the Messiah would mean beginning of the new era where he is the king.

 

No, it would not necessarily explain all this.

No necessarily, but they explains those things better than any other hypothesis.

[Looking4Answers]

If you refer to the Gospels, yes, they are exactly that; but I do not assume what they say is true.

 

If you do not assume that what the Gospels have to say is true, then where do you go to validate information like the supposed resurrection of Jesus? Just because millions of people have believed in this over the centuries does not make it true either. So what source can you turn to in order to help move the implausible story from fiction to a possibility?

 

So how it happened?

 

Frankly, I cannot believe you are even asking this question when I EXPLAINED that in the very same post you quoted me from. It could have happened the same way any other belief is spread and believed: simply by the telling of it. When you compound this with the fact that the story was often accompanied by an army that said, believe or die by the sword, the telling of the story becomes quite convincing.

 

I wasn't talking about that, but about the Jewish belief that coming of the Messiah would mean beginning of the new era where he is the king.

 

But a new era did not begin. This is why the Jewish people reject Jesus as being the messiah. According to the Tanach (Old Testament) the messiah would usher in an era of peace, where the swords would be beaten into plowshares and the nation of Israel would become the chief of all nations. David would somehow be seated on the throne again as vice-regent in Jerusalem (according to the book of Ezekiel). Nations would bring sacrifices to the temple in Jerusalem, thus further signifying that Israel was the chief of the nations. And there is a lot more told of this age in the Tanach. However, none of it happened in Jesus' life time and still has not taken place. I know the Christians say it will happen at his second coming, but the Tanach does not allow for this.

 

In fact, the Tanach states that nations that had turned against Israel would be punished leading up to this messianic era. Not only did this not happen, but most of those nations don't even exist any longer and, thus, cannot be punished.

 

While there was possibly a strong belief in a personal messiah in the days when Jesus supposedly existed, the predominant Jewish view was not one of a singular, personal messiah. Instead they believed in a messianic time. This was a time when the Jewish people, through much labor and love, would bring about a messianic age of peace and prosperity for the world. It did not necessitate a singular person, but the work of entire peoples. It seems even the Essene at Qumran held to this belief, and they were contemporary with the time of Jesus.

 

Today most of Judaism still maintains the thought of a messianic age instead of a personal messiah. A few of the untra-orthodox beliefs believe in a messiah that will come, but they do not believe he will be god in the flesh nor do they believe that he will die, but will instead usher in a time of peace for everyone.

 

What you have done is bought into what Christians teach that Jewish people believe and have believed. However, what is taught is not necessarily true and, even if some groups adhered to this belief to some degree, it was not the predominantly held belief, all things considered.

 

No necessarily, but they explains those things better than any other hypothesis.

 

Again ... a brick wall ... seriously. NO, it does not explain it better. It only helps Christians to keep believing. The BETTER explanation is that the story was fabricated over time and believed by some as it was told over and over. This is how other faiths got followers. We have seen how this happens, have evidence for it and so it is fairly safe to say that this is also how Christianity got started.

[hereticzero]

There hasn't been an honest story in the NT to believe at face value. There was no resurrection and I doubt there was even a cruci-fiction. Jesus and his junkies packed their digs and split. No one knows what actually happened to any of them, unless you believe the Catholic spin on things and if you do then you may as well go back to church. I don't know where you get a historical reality of the resurrection from all this delusional crap barfed up by the church and Christians. It did not happen so you have a better chance catching dust bunnies than you do trying to make anyone believe in a historical reality of the resurrection.

[Badger]

I think it's possible that the cult had a leader, who was killed, and for one or another reason they either made up the resurrection, or a couple of the ones in the inner circle intentionally set it up, or perhaps it was a misunderstanding or mixup. Hard to say.

Let's consider the "made up" hypothesis. It seems quite unlikely they would have succeed without the empty tomb; if Jesus' body was still in, their conspiracy would have been quickly exposed by the authorities. Did they steal his body? Was that part of the hoax? But it is difficult to find any motif or reason for such actions and explain how they managed to keep their conspiracy totally concealed. The hypothesis also requires the presumption that the disciples were morally corrupted enough to start this kind of massive conspiracy and keep it going. Finally, it seems absurd to imagine they were willing to die for their faith knowing it is based on a fraud. While this hypothesis may explain why the tomb was empty, and there is problems even here, it does not explain Paul's experience and conversion; an additional theory is needed to explain this. Isn't this going to be a bit too ad hoc?

 

And the appearance I attribute to religious fanaticism, lack of food or sleep, and perhaps they had to keep the idea alive or lose their identity from the last couple of years of investing. It happens all the time.

Indeed, you must have several hypothesis in oder to explain the data. But is is unlikely that "religious fanaticism" or "lack of food or sleep" would have generated the stories we have.

 

Let me ask you Badger, are you willing to die for your belief? If you were put into prison or in front of an execution squad, would you stand your grounds and maintain your beliefs?

Maybe, but I'm not sure.

[Badger]

If you do not assume that what the Gospels have to say is true, then where do you go to validate information like the supposed resurrection of Jesus? Just because millions of people have believed in this over the centuries does not make it true either. So what source can you turn to in order to help move the implausible story from fiction to a possibility?

Please read here.

 

Frankly, I cannot believe you are even asking this question when I EXPLAINED that in the very same post you quoted me from. It could have happened the same way any other belief is spread and believed: simply by the telling of it. When you compound this with the fact that the story was often accompanied by an army that said, believe or die by the sword, the telling of the story becomes quite convincing.

No, you didn't explain anything. The question was, how does one explain the beginning of Christianity, but I saw no reason why a group of Jewish came to believe Jesus was resurrected Messiah.

 

But a new era did not begin.

The point is that they believed a new era had begun. But why? Simply because they had some visions?

 

Again ... a brick wall ... seriously. NO, it does not explain it better.

The supernatural hypothesis (God raised Jesus from the death) has greater explanatory scope and it less ad hoc than any other hypothesis I have met. It does explain things better.

[Badger]

I just found this video where Tom Wright summarizes the main points pretty well. Watch it!

 

[Antlerman]

Frankly, I cannot believe you are even asking this question when I EXPLAINED that in the very same post you quoted me from. It could have happened the same way any other belief is spread and believed: simply by the telling of it. When you compound this with the fact that the story was often accompanied by an army that said, believe or die by the sword, the telling of the story becomes quite convincing.

No, you didn't explain anything. The question was, how does one explain the beginning of Christianity, but I saw no reason why a group of Jewish came to believe Jesus was resurrected Messiah.

Because the story is a later mythology about the origins of the Christian faith. It didn't begin like that. The story of Jesus coming on the scene with a secret (that he was the Messiah), training disciples to see this truth, dying a martyrs death, raising from the dead, and commissioning these now enlightened disciples to carry his message into the world, that this whole thing is predicted in the Hebrew's scriptures, and planned from before the creation of the world itself is.... an origin myth. It is an origin myth of the creation of their society. It is a later creation, a composed story of how they wished to imagine themselves, to validate themselves, to grant themselves authority, drawing off many differing stories, traditions, and imaginations reflective of the various communities where the various groups lived. A pretty common phenomenon of any society.

 

If you want an explanation of how a movement could get started and evolve to a place to incorporate stories of Jewish Messiah predictions, with Martyrdom themes, Sacrifice beliefs, Cosmic vindications, Apocalyptic visions, etc, I could offer some which are supported by legitimate scholarship, if you are really interested. You did say you would be open to a natural explanation.

 

As with anything in our experience of history and seeking explanations for things, there is a pretty consistent theme of supernatural explanations being offered as "the only explanation", silently falling into the background once reasonable explanations come along. And the theme with that is that it works better and more consistently that the miracle or magic explanation. The origins of the Gospels and the Christian belief is approached with this "inexplicable miracle" explanation in exactly the same way explaining any phenomena in nature was done when we lacked the knowledge to explain it very well. The "miracle" model of Christian origins is as lacking as say, the miracle model was for explaining how a bee can fly. The miracle model creates a host of contradictions if its premise is true. A natural model, once the hard work of discovery and learning is taken on, seems to always yield far more insights and consistent explanations than leaping into the "God did it" mode of thinking.

 

How open are you to really wanting to explain it? Or is it just something you wish to believe because it supports your faith?

 

The supernatural hypothesis (God raised Jesus from the death) has greater explanatory scope and it less ad hoc than any other hypothesis I have met. It does explain things better.

No it doesn't. It raises more problems than it explains. God wouldn't leave behind contradictions. If "God did it", one single flaw would shatter that model. And there are plenty.

[mwc]

Let's consider the "made up" hypothesis. It seems quite unlikely they would have succeed without the empty tomb; if Jesus' body was still in, their conspiracy would have been quickly exposed by the authorities. Did they steal his body? Was that part of the hoax? But it is difficult to find any motif or reason for such actions and explain how they managed to keep their conspiracy totally concealed.

Fine. Let's consider your position. The body is gone. The authorities are in a real bind because supernatural resurrection has somehow been proved by an absent body.

 

Simply take the body of one of the others that died that day, wrap them up and place them in the tomb. The only ones that know how the body was wrapped was Joe and Nick and if they make a fuss you kill them off (by "accident" of course...Pilate is apparently willing to play hit man for these Jews and there were others). So simply tell people how mistaken they were and parade people by the tomb. If they demand an unwrapping tell them you refuse to desecrate the body of even a criminal for them and their wild accusations. There is now a body in the tomb. Seal the tomb until it rots beyond all recognition for secondary burial. Case closed.

 

If the disciples take it upon themselves to unwrap the body and reveal the fraud it's now easy enough to say they're the ones who are planting evidence and punish them for doing so.

 

This isn't rocket science here. There were two other bodies to choose from. Two bodies no one appeared to care about or want. This would have been an easy thing to pull off.

 

I don't know how impressed you get over an empty, easy to access, hole in the wall...but most people aren't that impressed. It sure wasn't the talk of the town during Pentecost just a few weeks later. Word spread slowly when it came to such non-events.

 

The hypothesis also requires the presumption that the disciples were morally corrupted enough to start this kind of massive conspiracy and keep it going.

Ignoring anything to do with a "conspiracy" we know nothing at all about their morals. It could very well be easily within their morals to do such a thing.

 

Finally, it seems absurd to imagine they were willing to die for their faith knowing it is based on a fraud.

We have no idea how they died. We have a few legends but, as I recall, only one death is mentioned in the NT (I'd have to check). You also assume the legends present a realistic account of death. Maybe they got drunk and didn't pay a gambling debt so they were killed but that isn't so heroic so they got a better ending written for them?

 

While this hypothesis may explain why the tomb was empty, and there is problems even here, it does not explain Paul's experience and conversion; an additional theory is needed to explain this. Isn't this going to be a bit too ad hoc?

Paul persecuted xians. Paul noted the type of community xians had. He like the idea of being a leader instead of a follower. The followers would take all their possessions, sell them, and hand the proceeds to the leader. The leader would distribute the proceeds as he saw fit. He was also the "oracle" from the "god." The mouthpiece. So why would Paul wish to continue to take orders as a low level Pharisee when he could become an Apostle as a xian? It would appear his handicap was going to prevent him from going all the way to the top in the Jewish temple priesthood so he'd never get rich there. His claims that he went as far as he could are simple hyperbole since he'd be stationed in the temple and not running around the country if that were true. So he chose to be a big fish in a little pond. Sell your goods, hand your money to Paul, and listen to his oracles. Sounds like a reason to convert to me. But that's too "ad hod" and doesn't have anything to do with the reality of human nature plus it assumes that Paul's morals were just like anyone else's and not absolutely pure and good.

 

mwc

[Badger]

Because the story is a later mythology about the origins of the Christian faith. It didn't begin like that.

It is generally agreed by the critical scholars that Jesus' resurrection was an integral part of the earliest Christian teaching and that disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. This is based, for example, on 1 Cor 15, where Paul quotes an ancient creed, as I have explained. Bart Ehrman says, "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."

 

I could offer some which are supported by legitimate scholarship, if you are really interested.

Go ahead!

 

God wouldn't leave behind contradictions. If "God did it", one single flaw would shatter that model. And there are plenty.

It is interesting that you seems to know what God would or wouldn't do. The "it," in my hypothesis, is not the biblical texts but the resurrection itself. What flaws there are in this event?

[Ouroboros]

Let's consider the "made up" hypothesis. It seems quite unlikely they would have succeed without the empty tomb; if Jesus' body was still in, their conspiracy would have been quickly exposed by the authorities. Did they steal his body? Was that part of the hoax? But it is difficult to find any motif or reason for such actions and explain how they managed to keep their conspiracy totally concealed. The hypothesis also requires the presumption that the disciples were morally corrupted enough to start this kind of massive conspiracy and keep it going. Finally, it seems absurd to imagine they were willing to die for their faith knowing it is based on a fraud. While this hypothesis may explain why the tomb was empty, and there is problems even here, it does not explain Paul's experience and conversion; an additional theory is needed to explain this. Isn't this going to be a bit too ad hoc?

Did the authorities expose Islam, Scientology, or Raelians? Why is Muslims killing themselves to prove their faith?

 

Even today the court system isn't perfect. Innocent go to prison, and guilty go free. Do you really believe that the authorities were better in forensic and investigative science 2,000 years ago than they are today?

 

It's obvious that tricks and hoaxes can be made, even today, and go without counter evidence. Experiments have been done to indicate this, and historically documented events also show that no one, not even scientists, are free from the danger of being tricked.

 

You keep on, living in your little dreamworld, I am certain that the real story behind Jesus resurrection is far from what you think it is, but unfortunately we can't know exactly how it was done, since it was so long ago.

 

Indeed, you must have several hypothesis in oder to explain the data. But is is unlikely that "religious fanaticism" or "lack of food or sleep" would have generated the stories we have.

It's based on the fact that it has happened in other cases, and it sometimes still happens.

 

Your hypothesis is based on a one time, miraculous event, which have no other example in real life, before, after, or in present time. So I based my interpretation on what can have happened based on natural things, you base it on your belief. In other words, you believe first, then you interpret your story, hence the story is only true for those who believe. The story itself isn't strong enough by itself.

 

Let me ask you Badger, are you willing to die for your belief? If you were put into prison or in front of an execution squad, would you stand your grounds and maintain your beliefs?

Maybe, but I'm not sure.

Why not? Don't you believe enough in the story? Are you telling me that you do have some doubt? I thought you're arguing that this story is evident and without any doubt at all?

 

---

 

But to take another side of the story, because I see MWC is going that direction, lets say that the body was magically restored to life. Now, tell me why the explanation is not found in aliens using super-technology to do this? Lets say aliens came here to Earth, and used their advanced technology to do all those magical things, and even told people the myths about God, and God's kingdom etc, because they figured that if they spread a message about loving God and each other, the world would become better (eventually). This is what hundreds of thousands of people believe today. Are they wrong? And if so, why? (It's my favorite modern religion, the Raelians. The claim Jesus was the product of alien insemination and his resurrection was the result of cloning. And this group is large, and is getting larger by the minute. Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and other prophets were sent by the Elohim--alien confederation--to our world to set us straight. It all started with the leader of the cult meeting with the aliens in a French park in the 70's. These people believe. http://www.ufomind.com/area51/list/1997/mar/a12-002.shtml)