Jesus' Ressurection

[SEEtheScorn]

I hope readers have patience with me. It's just that I've spent the past 2 hours reading articles online TRYING desperately to find Christianity that makes sense. Mainly because I seek objectivity, and I seek knowledge and I don't want to pass off the countless poor written christian books if one claims they are better than said fools. So again, I hope you guys have patience with me for bringing up a topic I've sure has been beaten into the ground. I read: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/33112-historical-jesus/ and it cleared a lot of the stuff up, but I still have to ask.

 

Based off of William Lane Craig's arguments. I haven't bought his book, but have been reading online Q & A. I hope ya'll can help me sort through it.

 

 

1. On the Sunday morning after his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his female followers.

 

2. Various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

 

3. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite having nearly every predisposition to the contrary.

 

These are his proofs. In this letter, he's trying to make a point for historical proof I gather, because his questioner is asking based on biblical supposed inerrancy. So Craig offers this 3 points as the accepted proofs of Jesus' ressurection.

 

In all 4 gospels, apparently, women found the tomb empty. The names, and numbers, he says are irrelevant. Mary , however, is included in the group in all 4 cases. So I guess, maybe, grant that the tomb was found empty.

 

Lets also, I suppose, grant that the claim of others seeing Jesus is true. Can we say that it is?

 

He doesn't even mention Jesus' resurrection appearances, which, we know with certainty, people in Jerusalem had claimed to have experienced.

 

Really? With certainty?

 

Also, he tries to say people don't have mass hallucinations of things they have not seen, but that a hallucination is a projection of one's own mind, is that true? I know that mass hallucinations do happen, I've asked my psychology major hubbie this. He posits that since a Jew would never expect to see a ressurected Jesus, that they could not have hallucinated something they did not believe.

 

Also, the conviction of belief by 12 people usually gets to me. Why would so many people spread something they knew was a lie? Would people die for what they knew were a lie? Although while typing this, I know that people would even if there was a hope that it might be true... but I could use some help unpacking the argument.

 

Then there's this.. that just.. I dunno.

 

Whenever New Testament historians can determine that some Gospel writer is working with an earlier tradition, this enhances rather than detracts from its historical credibility because the window of time for legendary embellishment is closed even more tightly. So if the empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story, this is a huge plus for its historical credibility, as all historical scholars recognize.

 

Sorry to waste your guys times. I'm just exhausted physically from work, and mentally from reading.

[centauri]

 

 

1. On the Sunday morning after his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his female followers.

 

2. Various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

 

3. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite having nearly every predisposition to the contrary.

 

These are his proofs. In this letter, he's trying to make a point for historical proof I gather, because his questioner is asking based on biblical supposed inerrancy. So Craig offers this 3 points as the accepted proofs of Jesus' ressurection.

 

In all 4 gospels, apparently, women found the tomb empty. The names, and numbers, he says are irrelevant. Mary , however, is included in the group in all 4 cases. So I guess, maybe, grant that the tomb was found empty.

 

Lets also, I suppose, grant that the claim of others seeing Jesus is true. Can we say that it is?

It depends on how much slack you want to give the New Testament.

The details are often quite inconsistent, which doesn't lend credibility to the "proof".

The "proof" is only found in cult writings, designed to promote the story and its hero.

The selected writings were voted as canon by male clerics living hundreds of years after the alleged facts happened.

The authors of the stories aren't known with any degree of certainty.

Church tradition is not established history, at least not for me.

 

Then there's this.. that just.. I dunno.

 

Whenever New Testament historians can determine that some Gospel writer is working with an earlier tradition, this enhances rather than detracts from its historical credibility because the window of time for legendary embellishment is closed even more tightly. So if the empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story, this is a huge plus for its historical credibility, as all historical scholars recognize.

 

Sorry to waste your guys times. I'm just exhausted physically from work, and mentally from reading.

Embellishment can take place in a matter of hours.

Two examples:

The legends about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in the Iraq War and in Afghanistan.

 

Major news services ran stories on both these soldiers within hours after they were respectively captured and killed.

The headline news turned out to be embellishments that were encouraged by the military, as the nation was hungry for heroes.

The New Testament conveniently states that the resurrected Jesus only appeared to cult members, those that already believed.

He made no public appearances.

The credibility of the resurrection rests on selected cult writings that have no verification outside the confines of the cult traditions, which are inconsistent in regard to details.

[Shyone]

In all 4 gospels, apparently, women found the tomb empty. The names, and numbers, he says are irrelevant. Mary , however, is included in the group in all 4 cases. So I guess, maybe, grant that the tomb was found empty.

 

Lets also, I suppose, grant that the claim of others seeing Jesus is true. Can we say that it is?

 

I am a minimalist. I assume that the truth lies in consistency, so if you discount any people not mentioned as witnesses in another gospel, that leaves very few.

 

IIRC, that would leave some women. I'd better not make any generalizations here, but let's say that the fewer actual identified witnesses there are, the more likely it was an embellishment, hallucination, delusion or misinterpretation.

 

In fact, considering that no one else bothered to visit the tomb, we can't even be absolutely sure they were at the right tomb. My wife isn't too good at directions, and she would have looked in the wrong place. Besides, Joseph of Arimithea may have decided that Jesus wasn't worth his own tomb and got his carcass out that night but didn't have time to roll the stone back.

[SEEtheScorn]

After some time, my thoughts are in better order so I can answer my own questions. =/ So my thoughts are thus:

 

Did the women discover the tomb empty? It seems to me what they found were "angels" (grave robbers who lied to them?), ran back, told the disciples, and then "saw" Jesus (Matt. 1-9). In Mark, the man/angel was also there, but they saw the inside of the tomb (16:1-8) altough in this case, no sharing the info. Similar in Luke. Interesting how they did not simply discover the tomb empty, but also saw men. Now, if their saviour/Lord was killed, surely they'd be more willing to accept that these men were angels, and not grave robbers! Besides the point that it would've been a very emotional scene, and their thoughts easily persuaded by men in white robes.

 

 

With the case of many people seeing Jesus after his death, for one, how did they see him? In a dream? Or was it a vision? After discussion with the hubby, hallucinations are by all means probable. Even if people do not fully believe it to be true, or could be true. People who do not believe UFOs are real, can hallucinate them. Although it's uncommon, it's completely possible and happens.

 

Phew! Glad my tired mind could accomplish that.

[bdp]

An empty tomb is only an empty tomb - it might not have ever had anything in it. If any shred of the story is even true.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Don't even give it a passing thought.

 

The whole Jesus story was a re-invention of Mithra.

 

Jesus was Mithra in a previous life

 

Everything in Christ Jesus was a replica of Mithra, which itself borrowed from even earlier times:

 

Just one instance:

 

"(8)

In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

 

(9)

He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year."

 

Sound familiar? Well, read the whole thing! It's the biggest con ever pulled on humanity! I get SO angry, to think of all the people that believe this rubbish!

 

"Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

 

"The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe"

 

Christianity? Go figure!

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I am not the biggest authority figure on all this, but some of Craig's arguements are as far as i understand them a bit batshit crazy.

 

Read some rebuttals to Craig's arguements.

 

Primer to Craig rebuttals

 

By the time he stinketh by Robert Price

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Also the liar lunatic lord trilemma is a bit shitty to

 

I believed the lieing thing to until I started looking at other religions, People do sometimes die for a lie I grant you, though you need reasoning. But one of the things I noticed is that comparatively speaking when dealing with religions and credulous people like the apostles, it easily could have been true, to them.

 

Ask your pysch reference about cognitive dissonce it actually explains a great deal of the happening in the gospels in regards to the resurrection.

Hallincation as far as I understand it actually can explain the gospel accounts(done very little reading into this so be skeptical)

 

The gospels and first Corithinans as far as I understand them do contradict. And that is a problem.

 

infidels.org has some good rebuttals of apologits, and sometimes you are vary lucky and get enough quoted text from the apologist in them that the more sensitive of us don't cringe at reading a rebuttal of work we haven't read.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I won't by his book, because after reading by the time he stinketh I realize that Craig is a bit luny, though a credible loon so I still pay attention

[SEEtheScorn]

I realized he was a little batshit job when I realized that every well put together question and qualm with his books were started with a tear down of the guy's loss of faith. "Really? You're that weak to fall over that? Way to phail Jebus." And then he starts most break downs of that persons argument by telling him his argument is faulty, and poorly put together. Which it is not. Then tries to use the "every/most scholars agree" line. Being a Biblical scholar in the making myself... I don't consider half of the "scholars" he would be referring to as holding any water at all. Billy Graham ain't no scholar, Mr. Craig...

 

I love Dog, I have to admit I have not heard of the Mithra comparison. I know most of the others, but that one's new to me. =) Thanks for adding another one to the book!

 

And Valk, I will ask about cognitive dissonance... I did terrible in psych class. I really did. Failed almost every test, and that was me trying really hard and studying. And I've never been a studier. I'm one of those students who can not study a day and pass with flying colors. Psch destroyed my GPA. That's why I got my better half!

 

Also, thanks for the responses guys. I read all this guy's shit on causality, and the excessively verbose way he speaks got my head spinning. I know nothing of Quantum physics, so I was in the dark for a while. Unfortunately, the blindfold stayed through my specialty: theology. I appreciate taking the time to help me sort my thoughts. =P

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I realized he was a little batshit job when I realized that every well put together question and qualm with his books were started with a tear down of the guy's loss of faith. "Really? You're that weak to fall over that? Way to phail Jebus." And then he starts most break downs of that persons argument by telling him his argument is faulty, and poorly put together. Which it is not. Then tries to use the "every/most scholars agree" line. Being a Biblical scholar in the making myself... I don't consider half of the "scholars" he would be referring to as holding any water at all. Billy Graham ain't no scholar, Mr. Craig...

 

I love Dog, I have to admit I have not heard of the Mithra comparison. I know most of the others, but that one's new to me. =) Thanks for adding another one to the book!

 

And Valk, I will ask about cognitive dissonance... I did terrible in psych class. I really did. Failed almost every test, and that was me trying really hard and studying. And I've never been a studier. I'm one of those students who can not study a day and pass with flying colors. Psch destroyed my GPA. That's why I got my better half!

 

Also, thanks for the responses guys. I read all this guy's shit on causality, and the excessively verbose way he speaks got my head spinning. I know nothing of Quantum physics, so I was in the dark for a while. Unfortunately, the blindfold stayed through my specialty: theology. I appreciate taking the time to help me sort my thoughts. =P

 

You are right also on the scholarship thing. I have found a little to much conformation bias, in apologetics for my taste.

 

There is another site you might like

 

google

 

rejection of pascals wager

 

 

 

Also look at the creds of people

 

Craig a philisopher and a physics expert I have to cry bull

[SEEtheScorn]

Yeah, I wrote a paper for my philosophy class on Atheism (in a Christian school!) on the problems and rejections of Pascal's Wager. I know it all too well. It was my term paper for the class.

 

Since so many Xtian people whom I have had respectable debate with have suggested I read "Reasonable Faith," however, I'm forced to put my money in for purchasing it. =/ Ah well. We'll see how this goes.

[dagnarus]

Also, the conviction of belief by 12 people usually gets to me. Why would so many people spread something they knew was a lie? Would people die for what they knew were a lie? Although while typing this, I know that people would even if there was a hope that it might be true... but I could use some help unpacking the argument.

Just thought I'd point out that it cannot be proven that the 12 were martyred. It can even really be proven that they existed for that matter. Farrel Till goes somewhat into the lack of evidence for their martyrdom here.

[Shyone]

Also, the conviction of belief by 12 people usually gets to me. Why would so many people spread something they knew was a lie? Would people die for what they knew were a lie? Although while typing this, I know that people would even if there was a hope that it might be true... but I could use some help unpacking the argument.

Just thought I'd point out that it cannot be proven that the 12 were martyred. It can even really be proven that they existed for that matter. Farrel Till goes somewhat into the lack of evidence for their martyrdom here.

Incidentally, the post-resurrection appearances were not written by eye-witneses. The belief in the resurrection appears to have come from the women that visited the tomb, and I suspect the story grew from there.

 

Wanting to believe something and seeing it are not so removed from one another as you might think.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Having watched a number of cults, and nearly been in one myself, fervent members will gladly go along with made up tales if it means fitting in (even when they know the tales are not true). Thus it is not a big stretch at all for a 1st Century cult to have had a leader that they adored, buried him and had some of the guys relocate the body later and claim resurrection. Especially given the reports that he didn't look quite the same after the resurrection. We've all seen the length that cults in our day are willing to go so that they fit in together. The Heaven's Gate group had people willingly sterilized, dressed alike, and then willingly killed themselves to join the mothership in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet. Faking a resurrection doesn't seem that wild by comparison.

 

The Mormon faith is completely false and made up by a guy that wanted to have sex with lots of women, but that doesn't keep millions from fervently repeating it as absolute truth from God. So even if a cult really did believe that Jesus rose again, and went to their deaths proclaiming it, doesn't mean that it really happened.