How Did Belief In Jesus' Resurrection Get Started?

[Guest Valk0010]

I was recently for a different reason,was reading romans 16 and I found something interesting.

 

Romans 16:20.

 

Kind of a interesting thought, seems more and more like the apostles even expected the world to end really soon.

 

The idea of Christ being the first fruits, and the as Bill Craig even conceded, Matthew 27:52 as apocalyptic, makes the idea that the to me, if you accept the historical Jesus, it seems like the resurrection belief, was supposed to give eternal life, but for the end of the world. Hence the reason when he died they believed he rose. They got so wrapped up that they truely believed it. Thoughts?

 

Orlando, what do you think of festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance in regards to the resurrection belief?

Also what to you think of the hallucination theory that they witness visions of Jesus?

[orlando]

I'm not sure if you did get my point about Moses --- I'm saying it's thought the OT accounts were written in around the 5th Century BC or so, relating to events that supposedly happened around the 13thC BC, so there were obviously no possible eye-witnesses around etc when they were written. Whether or not there was any historical Moses, the tales by the time they were written were legend/folk tale etc. Or they may just have been made up wholesale to give an impressive history to the Jews. The stories about Jesus were probably written starting a couple of decades after he's supposed to have died, with Paul's letters bring the earliest, as he says he met James and Peter etc, and he (Paul) was clearly thought to be a dead historical figure by the time Clement was writing at the end of the 1st Century (and Acts also shows the Christians around the end of the 1st C saw him as having been an important figure in the decades just after Jesus died. I don't have any problem thinking they probably date from the 40a - 60sAD.

So, the fact that people in the 1st Century thought Moses wrote the books of the law and that he was an authentic historical figure, as many people today think Jesus was a historical figure, is irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

Re. what's reasonable or not, I just think that on balance it seems reasonable to think Jesus existed because I don't see any reason for either a deliberate campaign of deception by the first Christians or evidence that the first Christians did not believe he was historical but the next generation immediately fell into error about it.

 

It would be nice to have a clear account about Jesus from a Roman or Jewish non-Christian author from the early to mid 1st C to corroborate things, or an account written by Jesus himself, or some Roman record of his crucifixion etc but we don't have them and have to make do with what we've got.

[orlando]

I was recently for a different reason,was reading romans 16 and I found something interesting.

 

Romans 16:20.

 

Kind of a interesting thought, seems more and more like the apostles even expected the world to end really soon.

 

The idea of Christ being the first fruits, and the as Bill Craig even conceded, Matthew 27:52 as apocalyptic, makes the idea that the to me, if you accept the historical Jesus, it seems like the resurrection belief, was supposed to give eternal life, but for the end of the world. Hence the reason when he died they believed he rose. They got so wrapped up that they truely believed it. Thoughts?

 

Orlando, what do you think of festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance in regards to the resurrection belief?

Also what to you think of the hallucination theory that they witness visions of Jesus?

 

I think they did think the world was about to end soon, and so did Jesus. I think the disciples were shocked when he died and looked in the Bible to try to explain it and found the "suffering servant" parts and the bit about the son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven and decided that Jesus had to die, but would come back in glory soon.

 

I think the idea that they got wrapped up in the idea of resurrection and came to think he rose is possible and the same for your "cognitive dissonance" theory - do you mean the idea he was the Messiah but at the same time got killed created cognitive dissonance, so they had to come up with some means to reconcile the two? One question that leaves though is, if they thought he had risen in a literal way, what happened to the body? Maybe it was not buried in a tomb after all, but thrown in a common grave, and the tomb story is later? In any case, resurrection in early Christian belief did not have to mean a corpse resussitating - eg. Ignatius had no doubt that even if he was eaten by the lions God would recreate a new glorious body for him.

I think it is possible they had visions/hallucinations, as that seems to be what happened to Paul.

[Guest Valk0010]

I was recently for a different reason,was reading romans 16 and I found something interesting.

 

Romans 16:20.

 

Kind of a interesting thought, seems more and more like the apostles even expected the world to end really soon.

 

The idea of Christ being the first fruits, and the as Bill Craig even conceded, Matthew 27:52 as apocalyptic, makes the idea that the to me, if you accept the historical Jesus, it seems like the resurrection belief, was supposed to give eternal life, but for the end of the world. Hence the reason when he died they believed he rose. They got so wrapped up that they truely believed it. Thoughts?

 

Orlando, what do you think of festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance in regards to the resurrection belief?

Also what to you think of the hallucination theory that they witness visions of Jesus?

 

I think they did think the world was about to end soon, and so did Jesus. I think the disciples were shocked when he died and looked in the Bible to try to explain it and found the "suffering servant" parts and the bit about the son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven and decided that Jesus had to die, but would come back in glory soon.

 

I think the idea that they got wrapped up in the idea of resurrection and came to think he rose is possible and the same for your "cognitive dissonance" theory - do you mean the idea he was the Messiah but at the same time got killed created cognitive dissonance, so they had to come up with some means to reconcile the two? One question that leaves though is, if they thought he had risen in a literal way, what happened to the body? Maybe it was not buried in a tomb after all, but thrown in a common grave, and the tomb story is later? In any case, resurrection in early Christian belief did not have to mean a corpse resussitating - eg. Ignatius had no doubt that even if he was eaten by the lions God would recreate a new glorious body for him.

I think it is possible they had visions/hallucinations, as that seems to be what happened to Paul.

My thinking says that the tomb was a later addition, the story would be more detailed in mark, and would not have ended in the odd way it did, if the tomb was a establish fact.

 

Seems like overzealous supernatural apolgetic mythos, the gospels I mean.

[mwc]

I'm not sure if you did get my point about Moses --- I'm saying it's thought the OT accounts were written in around the 5th Century BC or so, relating to events that supposedly happened around the 13thC BC, so there were obviously no possible eye-witnesses around etc when they were written. Whether or not there was any historical Moses, the tales by the time they were written were legend/folk tale etc. Or they may just have been made up wholesale to give an impressive history to the Jews. The stories about Jesus were probably written starting a couple of decades after he's supposed to have died, with Paul's letters bring the earliest, as he says he met James and Peter etc, and he (Paul) was clearly thought to be a dead historical figure by the time Clement was writing at the end of the 1st Century (and Acts also shows the Christians around the end of the 1st C saw him as having been an important figure in the decades just after Jesus died. I don't have any problem thinking they probably date from the 40a - 60sAD.

Then you've located evidence for Moses and the Exodus?

 

Paul met a James and knew a Cephas. He, for some reason, mentions "Peter" only two times in all his writings and no one knows why exactly. Cephas gets a loose connection to Peter through another language that Paul is supposed to have spoken (for some reason) and a single mention in G.John I believe. No one else felt like calling him Cephas I guess. This James was obviously the "brother" of "jesus" because Paul calls him "the brother of the lord" and that means "the brother of Jesus" even though he disagrees with everything he says. I guess being the literal brother of a god doesn't count for much in Paul's eyes. Add to the this the fact that nowhere else else is the term "brother(s) of the lord" used in all the texts, well, except a few other places, and it's not really a familial connection that is meant at all and we have that Paul met a couple of guys named James and Cephas (and a John) who lived at some point in time in Jerusalem and supposedly ran the church there but Paul really didn't know and really didn't care. He did know they were apostles but he didn't count them in the twelve (or he didn't care to mention it). Heck, he mentions other apostles that aren't in the twelve so I don't know if we should just assume that like names get a person into that group or not.

 

So, the fact that people in the 1st Century thought Moses wrote the books of the law and that he was an authentic historical figure, as many people today think Jesus was a historical figure, is irrelevant to the point I was making.

There were no eye-witnesses around for the writings of the xians either. If Paul wrote to people in Greece were they sending people back to Jerusalem to check the stories? Based on his letters? Why were James and Peter poking around way up there too? All those Judaizers? Forcing folks to get circumcised up in Greece? Makes perfect sense. But based on some crazy story of a dead zombie Jew guy they put someone on a boat, who goes to Jerusalem, interviews lots of folks, looks into an empty tomb to make sure it really is empty, then comes home after months of research only to confirm this story or call Paul out as a liar? Is that what is supposed to have happened? Then when Paul goes to the next region we do it all again? Then after everyone dies off at age 30-40 and we know that this guy had no huge following then all the research will get is "Huh?" from the locals. The story says that's what will happen so that confirms it. The Acts has the apostles reminding everyone in town what happened just 40 days prior. Was it that forgetful? Crucifixions at Passover weren't *that* common.

 

The story we have says that no one saw the body get buried except for one Joseph and maybe a Nicodemus. So would they find these two and ask? Sure the women were there but not even the apostles accepted their witness so they're useless. Who would ask them? Then we know the apostles themselves couldn't recall any of the prophecies that Jesus made about himself until he came back to life and then the remembered. Meanwhile the Jews, the enemy, remembered these same prophecies and apparently made provisions for them ahead of time. So who would our seekers ask? Maybe people would remember things and maybe they wouldn't. It seems hit and miss on remembering this guy and his prophecy. I mentioned the tomb already. We need it to be empty. I guess we'd need to find people that remember the temple incident and some healings but based on Acts that seems unlikely. Even Paul doesn't seem to know any of this stuff and he was right there for the stoning of Stephen literally days after all these events. He was probably there for Passover itself from the sound of things but we can only assume so much. So it's hard to say who people would seek out and who they'd interview. No xians ever tell the story of their personal journey's of how they did this task. They simply sit around, read some texts, and pass stories to one another. Infoquests weren't high on their agenda.

 

Re. what's reasonable or not, I just think that on balance it seems reasonable to think Jesus existed because I don't see any reason for either a deliberate campaign of deception by the first Christians or evidence that the first Christians did not believe he was historical but the next generation immediately fell into error about it.

Why does there have to be a "deliberate campaign of deception" by anyone? I've never said this. I've tried to state otherwise many times. There was simply a difference of beliefs. In broadest strokes there was some that felt there was a physical jesus and others that did not. There is no "deception" anywhere here. What would happen is those who believed in a physical jesus would want to know more about this literal person and so they would augment his "life" with more details. Plain and simple. Many legends, myths, fantasies, and so on act in just this way. The (original) Star Trek universe is certainly a fraud but the characters, over all this time, have been "fleshed out." Simply because people wanted to know more about them. If you have a "spiritual" type of jesus then there isn't much more to know as far as this type of "fleshing out" but a physical jesus needs to be born, somewhere, and needs parents and needs to do things and be places and say things even engage with people and possibly die. Who knows but all the things people do. A "spiritual" type of jesus does different things. It would likely still say things. Possibly identical to the other type of jesus and it may also interact with people and who knows what else but it wouldn't be the same. These differences do not make for lies or any sort of deception. They make for a difference in interpretation of the existing stories (oral and/or textual) likely as a result of the "spirit" (ie. the reading of the OT prophecies and other oracles...mainly those that indicate a human presence).

 

It would be nice to have a clear account about Jesus from a Roman or Jewish non-Christian author from the early to mid 1st C to corroborate things, or an account written by Jesus himself, or some Roman record of his crucifixion etc but we don't have them and have to make do with what we've got.

And based on what we've got there's nothing more than some church stories about a guy that couldn't have existed as described.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I think it is possible they had visions/hallucinations, as that seems to be what happened to Paul.

I know this is impossible to answer but I wonder it each time I see this. Why is it that the only disciples of some random messiah that seemed to have gotten so freaked out by the death of their leader to the point of visions and creating a doctrine about it are these guys? I've seen stories where people have seen "dead people" but not to the extent of these guys. This particular apologetic is really baffling to me since this seems to be an almost unique event in all history. All the other times where there have been similar events, where groups have even been involved, creative doctrines (for the benefit of outsiders and not the group itself) and mass evangelism like what we see here doesn't seem to be the result.

 

So how is this really kind of singularly applied to these guys especially when the entire tale is taken more or less directly from the pages of their own texts?

 

mwc

[orlando]

But for there to be no deception then the 1st form of Christianity would have to have had a Jesus who was a purely divine figure operating in a heavenly realm etc, and I don't see evidence of this and no Jews were expecting the Messiah to be a purely divine, non physical entity. Where there were disagreements over Jesus among different sects the disagreements were not over whether or not there was a man called Jesus who was crucified, they were just over what his "true" nature and significance was.

[orlando]

I think it is possible they had visions/hallucinations, as that seems to be what happened to Paul.

I know this is impossible to answer but I wonder it each time I see this. Why is it that the only disciples of some random messiah that seemed to have gotten so freaked out by the death of their leader to the point of visions and creating a doctrine about it are these guys? I've seen stories where people have seen "dead people" but not to the extent of these guys. This particular apologetic is really baffling to me since this seems to be an almost unique event in all history. All the other times where there have been similar events, where groups have even been involved, creative doctrines (for the benefit of outsiders and not the group itself) and mass evangelism like what we see here doesn't seem to be the result.

 

So how is this really kind of singularly applied to these guys especially when the entire tale is taken more or less directly from the pages of their own texts?

 

mwc

 

So what's your explanation of the appearance claims? That they were entirely fictional? Even today you get some religious fanatics who say they have seen appearances of Jesus and Mary and so on, so it does happen.

[mwc]

So what's your explanation of the appearance claims? That they were entirely fictional? Even today you get some religious fanatics who say they have seen appearances of Jesus and Mary and so on, so it does happen.

Appearance claims can be entirely fictional. Why not? They differ considerably so we'd have to simply accept "and he appeared to [some of] them" as the basic claim. The claim only appears within the texts from the cult. Mary had an appearance from Gabriel. Did this happen? It's in the text after all so I guess it did. I personally wouldn't expect a visit from him telling me I was going to be impregnated by a spirit.

 

The story requires an appearance. He must be the first-fruits of their god proving that resurrection is a fact. He may have brought people back to life but this god brought him back to life on his own without some agent being involved. That's the key point of the story. So since he was brought to life this paves the way for all the rest, that god chooses, to be brought back to life as well.

 

Post death experiences are known to occur, and quite often, but in a story where other "visions" are happening as well how do we accept this one and not accept the others? Just because it's post-death? (a death we can't confirm and is illogical) I'd say seeing Lazarus ranks right up there but this doesn't have a huge cult. Nor do the other post-resurrection appearances that should have occurred or the other amazing "visions" that took place. Just this one. This singular event. And the stories themselves discount them by saying some of the apostles saw and were convinced while others did not. This wasn't, by the text, that an amazing of an event (I don't have the text open but it's when they go to Galilee on the mountain). But yet it apparently was...today.

 

Anyhow, it's nearly 8am and so I'm heading off to bed.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I took offense at the idea that I base my ideas on the like of some movie or a website rather than going through piles of source texts myself. Drawing my own conclusions. Looking at the history behind the texts. The people. The places. Trying to understand them and the cultures. Not just some simplistic take that someone else has come to and offered up for me to either accept or reject based on whether or not I like their presentation and it agrees with what I already tend to think. I've changed my opinion several times since I've started this process and it's been extremely enlightening for me. It hasn't been simple and it hasn't been taken lightly. I don't care to be put off with a bunch of cranks.

 

I apologize for my accusations of you but I was also offended at your accusation that because we believe in a historical Jesus, we're just making up a Jesus that fits out preconceived ideas or whatever and that we're not trying to be objective at all as if Jesus Mythers are somehow more inherently objective than people who believe in a historical Jesus. I have also changed my position on the existence of Jesus. When I first deconverted, I still accepted there was a historical Jesus, then for awhile I believed in the Jesus Myth hypothesis, and now I'm back to believing in the historical Jesus again, so I have argued from both sides before.

[orlando]

Yes, that applies to me too.

 

re. 1st fruits etc, I wonder if anyone can help clarify for me the appearances to Paul -- I think he thought Jesus was the "1st fruits" of a physical resurrection (not physical as we know it, but with "glorious" bodies, but not as insubstantial ghosts either) he compares what happened to Jesus to what the Christians hope for for themselves after death, plus he says Jesus died and was buried and on the 3rd day rose again, so we're talking more than just "his spirit going to heaven". However the way Jesus appeared to him (on more than one occasion, I think) seemed to be more like visions and hearing voices etc rather than the solid Jesus who supposedly ate with the disciples. Theologically-speaking, what is supposed to be the explanation here? Is it that Jesus having ascended to Heaven has temporarily dispensed with a solid body, or are these post-ascension appearances done remotely - his body is in Heaven but he is sort of communicating at a distance by way of voices and apparitions and inward revelations etc?!

[Guest Valk0010]

Yes, that applies to me too.

 

re. 1st fruits etc, I wonder if anyone can help clarify for me the appearances to Paul -- I think he thought Jesus was the "1st fruits" of a physical resurrection (not physical as we know it, but with "glorious" bodies, but not as insubstantial ghosts either) he compares what happened to Jesus to what the Christians hope for for themselves after death, plus he says Jesus died and was buried and on the 3rd day rose again, so we're talking more than just "his spirit going to heaven". However the way Jesus appeared to him (on more than one occasion, I think) seemed to be more like visions and hearing voices etc rather than the solid Jesus who supposedly ate with the disciples. Theologically-speaking, what is supposed to be the explanation here? Is it that Jesus having ascended to Heaven has temporarily dispensed with a solid body, or are these post-ascension appearances done remotely - his body is in Heaven but he is sort of communicating at a distance by way of voices and apparitions and inward revelations etc?!

I am under the impression, that Jesus would be like the first to go, for some like end times, big bang mass resurrection(sometimes that was pretty kosher, pardon the pun, in jewish theology if I recall)

 

But Paul did say he saw jesus in a hallucinatory experience, and never said that he experienced was any different the what the rest of the apostles experienced.

[Guest Valk0010]

I think it is possible they had visions/hallucinations, as that seems to be what happened to Paul.

I know this is impossible to answer but I wonder it each time I see this. Why is it that the only disciples of some random messiah that seemed to have gotten so freaked out by the death of their leader to the point of visions and creating a doctrine about it are these guys? I've seen stories where people have seen "dead people" but not to the extent of these guys. This particular apologetic is really baffling to me since this seems to be an almost unique event in all history. All the other times where there have been similar events, where groups have even been involved, creative doctrines (for the benefit of outsiders and not the group itself) and mass evangelism like what we see here doesn't seem to be the result.

 

So how is this really kind of singularly applied to these guys especially when the entire tale is taken more or less directly from the pages of their own texts?

 

mwc

 

So what's your explanation of the appearance claims? That they were entirely fictional? Even today you get some religious fanatics who say they have seen appearances of Jesus and Mary and so on, so it does happen.

I have operated under the idea I read from ehrman, of that, any possible explanation of all the events of the resurrection and the miracles is more like then actual miracles occurring, so that is my best explanation on the hallucinations bit, which is honestly not a real explanation at all but just a point imho worth considering.

 

So maybe hallucinations but, in concert without something else? I dunno really.

[orlando]

 

 

But Paul did say he saw jesus in a hallucinatory experience, and never said that he experienced was any different the what the rest of the apostles experienced.

 

well yes... I find that a bit contradictory -- on the one hand he refers to how our flesh will be changed into glorious bodies like his etc, and on the other hand he compares his " hallucination" type experiences to the ones of the apostles.

 

But then again, maybe he sees his risen Jesus as having powers to manifest himself in any way he likes - as a light and a voice, as providing inner revelations etc etc, or appearing solidly. And it's just occurred to me that he may not have been aware of the later New Testment tradition that there was a month or so when Jesus made more or less solid appearances before " ascending" - this is not really what we get from this:

 

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

 

So he might not distinguish a pre and post ascension Jesus - just see him as having come back from the dead in some all-powerful form that can appear and disappear, go up to Heaven or down to Earth etc. On the other hand, having said that, he clearly also teaches the second coming, and Jesus ushering in the Kingdom (like where he says the believers will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord etc).. so does he see his appearances as just him popping back for a quick visit before this definitive arrival, or is it that he was not back on the Earth in his full form and power at those moments... ? Or am I just being silly trying to find logic in the beliefs of this Christian nutjob?

[orlando]

 

 

But Paul did say he saw jesus in a hallucinatory experience, and never said that he experienced was any different the what the rest of the apostles experienced.

 

well yes... I find that a bit contradictory -- on the one hand he refers to how our flesh will be changed into glorious bodies like his etc, and on the other hand he compares his " hallucination" type experiences to the ones of the apostles.

 

But then again, maybe he sees his risen Jesus as having powers to manifest himself in any way he likes - as a light and a voice, as providing inner revelations etc etc, or appearing solidly. And it's just occurred to me that he may not have been aware of the later New Testment tradition that there was a month or so when Jesus made more or less solid appearances before " ascending" - this is not really what we get from this:

 

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

 

So he might not distinguish a pre and post ascension Jesus - just see him as having come back from the dead in some all-powerful form that can appear and disappear, go up to Heaven or down to Earth etc. On the other hand, having said that, he clearly also teaches the second coming, and Jesus ushering in the Kingdom (like where he says the believers will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord etc).. so does he see his appearances as just him popping back for a quick visit before this definitive arrival, or is it that he was not back on the Earth in his full form and power at those moments... ? Or am I just being silly trying to find logic in the claims of this Christian nutjob?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

But Paul did say he saw jesus in a hallucinatory experience, and never said that he experienced was any different the what the rest of the apostles experienced.

 

well yes... I find that a bit contradictory -- on the one hand he refers to how our flesh will be changed into glorious bodies like his etc, and on the other hand he compares his " hallucination" type experiences to the ones of the apostles.

 

But then again, maybe he sees his risen Jesus as having powers to manifest himself in any way he likes - as a light and a voice, as providing inner revelations etc etc, or appearing solidly. And it's just occurred to me that he may not have been aware of the later New Testment tradition that there was a month or so when Jesus made more or less solid appearances before " ascending" - this is not really what we get from this:

 

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

 

So he might not distinguish a pre and post ascension Jesus - just see him as having come back from the dead in some all-powerful form that can appear and disappear, go up to Heaven or down to Earth etc. On the other hand, having said that, he clearly also teaches the second coming, and Jesus ushering in the Kingdom (like where he says the believers will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord etc).. so does he see his appearances as just him popping back for a quick visit before this definitive arrival, or is it that he was not back on the Earth in his full form and power at those moments... ? Or am I just being silly trying to find logic in the beliefs of this Christian nutjob?

This is a beaten over point really, but where the hell did the body go. To me, as far as I can see it, the typical common grave makes more sense.

 

But a curious things comes up through that. If the body was in a common grave and the empty tomb is a late tradition, what makes the resurrection belief.

 

I think to a certain extant we are placating a dead guy who had a penchant for hallucination. But I guess a "supernatural body" (for jesus) as apologist Bill Craig once put it, could consist of form yet transparency, and be difficult to recognize.

 

Depends on what, can be conceded to a hallucination, or a fabrication of some sort?

 

Though I never really thought hallucinations explained more then the supposed appearances.

 

Not sure about what MWC said about the multiple attestation issue of it. But my guess is either, the like Raad to Emmanus for example might be later embellishment. Also I read I believe from Keith Parsons that, in his opinion, the idea of the appearances being 40 days or whatever it was, is a matter of theological interpretation.

 

Also for example appearing to james, might have a similar kind of experience, that, Gerd ludemen(who i have only really read in outline, via a different author) purposed happened to paul, since wasn't it james that was a nonbeliever but then became a believer.

[mwc]

I apologize for my accusations of you but I was also offended at your accusation that because we believe in a historical Jesus, we're just making up a Jesus that fits out preconceived ideas or whatever and that we're not trying to be objective at all as if Jesus Mythers are somehow more inherently objective than people who believe in a historical Jesus. I have also changed my position on the existence of Jesus. When I first deconverted, I still accepted there was a historical Jesus, then for awhile I believed in the Jesus Myth hypothesis, and now I'm back to believing in the historical Jesus again, so I have argued from both sides before.

No apologies needed (though it's appreciated). I took a look at the thread and noted that you introduced Zeitgeist in response to "I Love God" and I can only think that weak mythicist apologetic like those are problematic for you. But this would be like my constantly pointing to the worst of the worst of evidence related to any sort of "jesus" and trying to link you with them. Some sort of "Answers in Genesis" crowd or some such nonsense. It's not something worth doing since I don't feel you'd draw from there unless you had a point you wish to make that required it. Anyhow, offense wasn't my intent so I'm sorry if I offended.

 

If you've followed what I've said at all then you should be able to see that HJ and MJ are essentially two sides of the same coin. We just interpret the references differently and the HJ camp eventually won out. That does mean that I do think that the "gnostic" variety (in the wider sense) was likely earlier than later which differs from most opinions. If the words used were masculine people could have interpreted them literally and ultimately a male figure would have emerged from the language itself.

 

mwc

[mwc]

re. 1st fruits etc, I wonder if anyone can help clarify for me the appearances to Paul -- I think he thought Jesus was the "1st fruits" of a physical resurrection (not physical as we know it, but with "glorious" bodies, but not as insubstantial ghosts either) he compares what happened to Jesus to what the Christians hope for for themselves after death, plus he says Jesus died and was buried and on the 3rd day rose again, so we're talking more than just "his spirit going to heaven". However the way Jesus appeared to him (on more than one occasion, I think) seemed to be more like visions and hearing voices etc rather than the solid Jesus who supposedly ate with the disciples. Theologically-speaking, what is supposed to be the explanation here? Is it that Jesus having ascended to Heaven has temporarily dispensed with a solid body, or are these post-ascension appearances done remotely - his body is in Heaven but he is sort of communicating at a distance by way of voices and apparitions and inward revelations etc?!

But Paul's explanation is much different than anything else. He compares the current body and the "new" body to that of the seed and the plant which comes from that seed. The seed would be the current body and the new body is the plant which comes from that seed. It is something that is totally different from that seed even though it came from that seed. It would be unrecognizable using this analogy.

 

1 Corinthians 15

 

36 Foolish man, it is necessary for the seed which you put into the earth to undergo death in order that it may come to life again: 37 And when you put it into the earth, you do not put in the body which it will be, but only the seed, of grain or some other sort of plant; 38 But God gives it a body, as it is pleasing to him, and to every seed its special body.

Paul believed that seed were planted, died, and then new life came from them. So he used this analogy for his religion. We are the "seeds." God has "planted" us down here on earth. So inside us, our "souls," are stuck inside the "seeds," and when we die the new life will spring forth.

 

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, and another of fishes. 40 And there are bodies of heaven and bodies of earth, but the glory of the one is different from that of the other. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for the glory of one star is different from that of another. 42 So is it with the coming back from the dead. It is planted in death; it comes again in life: 43 It is planted in shame; it comes again in glory: feeble when it is planted, it comes again in power: 44 It is planted a natural body; it comes again as a body of the spirit. If there is a natural body, there is equally a body of the spirit.

All life is essentially just different "seeds." The body of the "spirit" is the new one Paul is talking about when the resurrection comes. It's what will come from our current "seed" body.

 

45 And so it is said, The first man Adam was a living soul. The last Adam is a life-giving spirit. 46 But that which is natural comes before that which is of the spirit. 47 The first man is from the earth, and of the earth: the second man is from heaven. 48 Those who are of the earth are like the man who was from the earth: and those who are of heaven are like the one from heaven. 49 And in the same way as we have taken on us the image of the man from the earth, so we will take on us the image of the one from heaven. 50 Now I say this, my brothers, that it is not possible for flesh and blood to have a part in the kingdom of God; and death may not have a part in life. 51 See, I am giving you the revelation of a secret: we will not all come to the sleep of death, but we will all be changed. 52 In a second, in the shutting of an eye, at the sound of the last horn: for at that sound the dead will come again, free for ever from the power of death, and we will be changed. 53 For this body which comes to destruction will be made free from the power of death, and the man who is under the power of death will put on eternal life. 54 But when this has taken place, then that which was said in the Writings will come true, Death is overcome by life.

Once we get this new body then we're not going to be susceptible to death and the like anymore. He has his whole philosophy about this. But this is what he envisions as a resurrected body. A new "type" of body that is spirit in nature and is unlike our current bodies as much as a seed is unlike the plant that comes from that seed. You wouldn't recognize the plant from the seed so how to recognized the spirit body from our current one?

 

Anyhow, reading 1 Corinthians 15 gives a better idea of what Paul seemed to think about the whole concept and it's not the same as the gospels who describe something extremely similar to the body we have now. Many people try to connect this post-resurrection gospel body to the transfigured body but Peter knew immediately that it was still "jesus" and that Moses and Elijah were there too (having never seen them ever) but he could not place this post-resurrected "jesus" straight-away as-if it was slightly out of focus or something. A transfigured body was easy to recognize, even for people you've never met, and a post-resurrected body took a moment or two for it to become clear. Paul indicates a pre and post resurrected body are as different as the seed and the plant the seed comes from.

 

mwc

[mwc]

This is a beaten over point really, but where the hell did the body go. To me, as far as I can see it, the typical common grave makes more sense.

 

But a curious things comes up through that. If the body was in a common grave and the empty tomb is a late tradition, what makes the resurrection belief.

Which body? The body of Jesus? If we assume the story to be true then it rose from the dead. If we assume the story to be partially true then we can speculate any number of answers. The gospel of G.Matthew does some of the work for us by pre-emptively arguing away that the disciples stole the body at night. Pilate wouldn't have simply let anyone take it from the cross, Passover or not, so probably rotted there. But we're told Pilate thought him innocent and there's no reason he'd waste the resources putting an innocent man to death so he was set free, perhaps after a whipping, and nothing happened at all.

 

Not sure about what MWC said about the multiple attestation issue of it. But my guess is either, the like Raad to Emmanus for example might be later embellishment. Also I read I believe from Keith Parsons that, in his opinion, the idea of the appearances being 40 days or whatever it was, is a matter of theological interpretation.

Read up on the "synoptic problem" and multiple attestation isn't an issue. Saul's vision takes place in Acts so that's not really an issue either. Paul never speaks to it in his letters.

 

Also for example appearing to james, might have a similar kind of experience, that, Gerd ludemen(who i have only really read in outline, via a different author) purposed happened to paul, since wasn't it james that was a nonbeliever but then became a believer.

Which James? We're told of a number of James and Paul doesn't specify which one. By way of a series of loose connections we'll eventually conclude that it is James, the brother of the lord (read: "Jesus" even though this is never mentioned anywhere in the stories).

 

mwc

[mwc]

I decided to take another shot at a couple of these since I realized I screwed up one of my answers a bit...

 

Depends on what, can be conceded to a hallucination, or a fabrication of some sort?

 

Though I never really thought hallucinations explained more then the supposed appearances.

This isn't the one I messed up but I was thinking about it a little.

 

Matthew 14

 

25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. 26 And when they saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they gave cries of fear. 27 But straight away Jesus said to them, Take heart; it is I, have no fear. 28 And Peter, answering, said to him, Lord, if it is you, give me the order to come to you on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And Peter got out of the boat, and walking on the water, went to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind he was in fear and, starting to go down, he gave a cry, saying, Help, Lord. 31 And straight away Jesus put out his hand and took a grip of him, and said to him, O man of little faith, why were you in doubt? 32 And when they had got into the boat, the wind went down. 33 And those who were in the boat gave him worship, saying, Truly you are the Son of God.

 

Matthew 28

 

16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had given them orders to go. 17 And when they saw him they gave him worship: but some were in doubt.

Comparing these two events the walking on water "vision" is a far more impressive event that the post-resurrection even in G.Matthew. We can't get too excited about what happens in chapter 28.

 

But looking at a different version:

Luke 24

 

36 And while they were saying these things, he himself was among them, and said to them, Peace be with you! 37 But they were full of fear, being of the opinion that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And he said to them, Why are you troubled, and why are your hearts full of doubt? 39 See; my hands and my feet: it is I myself; put your hands on me and make certain; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have. 40 And when he had said this, he let them see his hands and his feet. 41 And because, for joy and wonder, they were still in doubt, he said to them, Have you any food here? 42 And they gave him a bit of cooked fish. 43 And before their eyes he took a meal.

This isn't the complete thing (he rambles on awhile longer) but it compares well to the boat story actually. And it's helpful that the whole walking on water thing is pretty much skipped by G.Luke too.

 

What about G.Mark? He includes the walking on water story and the post-resurrection one as well (in the long version...obviously what might have been in the short version is unknown to us):

Mark 6

 

48 And seeing that they had trouble in getting their boat through the water, because the wind was against them, about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea; and he would have gone past them; 49 But they, when they saw him walking on the sea, took him for a spirit, and gave a loud cry: 50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. But straight away he said to them, Take heart, it is I, have no fear. 51 And he went to them into the boat, and the wind went down, and they were full of wonder in themselves; 52 For it was not clear to them about the bread; but their hearts were hard.

 

Mark 16

 

14 And later he was seen by the eleven themselves while they were taking food; and he said sharp words to them because they had no faith and their hearts were hard, and because they had no belief in those who had seen him after he had come back from the dead. 15 And he said to them, Go into all the world, and give the good news to everyone. 16 He who has faith and is given baptism will get salvation; but he who has not faith will be judged. 17 And these signs will be with those who have faith: in my name they will send out evil spirits; and they will make use of new languages; 18 They will take up snakes, and if there is poison in their drink, it will do them no evil; they will put their hands on those who are ill, and they will get well. 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had said these words to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.

His walking on water story isn't as sophisticated as G.Matthew's version (and the disciples, having seen an amazing miracle of walking on water and controlling the weather, are stuck on the loaves of bread...they are a tad slow...or the bread is a puzzle to solved and/or this pericope was inserted interrupting the flow a bit but that's of no concern to us now).

 

Now I would show G.John but it has Jesus popping up all over the place. I don't think it's really useful for comparison. Maybe I'll just show the "best" cases?

John 6

 

19 After they had gone three or four miles they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near to the boat; and they had great fear. 20 But he said to them, It is I, have no fear. 21 Then they readily took him into the boat: and straight away the boat was at the land to which they were going.

 

John 20

 

19 At evening on that day, the first day of the week, when, for fear of the Jews, the doors were shut where the disciples were, Jesus came among them and said to them, May peace be with you! 20 And when he had said this, he let them see his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 And Jesus said to them again, May peace be with you! As the Father sent me, even so I now send you. 22 And when he had said this, breathing on them, he said to them, Let the Holy Spirit come on you: 23 Any to whom you give forgiveness, will be made free from their sins; and any from whom you keep back forgiveness, will still be in their sins. 24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, named Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, If I do not see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the print of the nails, and if I do not put my hand into his side, I will never have belief. 26 And after eight days, his disciples were again in the house and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were shut, Jesus came, and taking his place in the middle of them, he said, May peace be with you! 27 Then he said to Thomas, Put out your finger, and see my hands; and put your hand here into my side: and be no longer in doubt but have belief. 28 And Thomas said in answer, My Lord and my God! 29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!

G.John has almost no walking on water story but a far more sophisticated post-resurrection story (stories) than anyone else. There's no reason he can't have an elaborate walking on water story but it seems it's just not that important.

 

The idea that the disciples engaged in some group hallucination seems to "grow" as the stories themselves become embellished. In G.Matthew there would simply be no reason to think that anyone hallucinated anything that all. Some guys went to a hill in Galilee and some believed and some didn't. Not too compelling. It's the later embellishments that lead us to the idea that there was some great "catalyst" possibly a group "hallucination" that is the prime mover here. The walking on water story just demonstrates this group seemed prone to group hallucinations long before anyone died. They thought they may have spotted a "ghost," were afraid, when assured it was their "real" leader they were relieved and accepted him into their midst. Same basic ingredients (depending on the version we read).

 

Not sure about what MWC said about the multiple attestation issue of it. But my guess is either, the like Raad to Emmanus for example might be later embellishment. Also I read I believe from Keith Parsons that, in his opinion, the idea of the appearances being 40 days or whatever it was, is a matter of theological interpretation.

Here's where I screwed up. I was thinking "Paul" and the "Road to Damascus" when I read this for some reason. My mistake.

 

G.Matthew and G.John make no mention of this at all so we'll check the other two.

 

Mark 16

 

12 And after these things he was seen in another form by two of them, while they were walking on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and gave news of it to the rest; and they had no belief in what was said.

 

Luke 24

 

12 But Peter got up and went to the place where the body had been put, and looking in he saw nothing but the linen cloths, and he went to his house full of wonder at what had taken place.

 

13 And then, two of them, on that very day, were going to a little town named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they were talking together about all those things which had taken place. 15 And while they were talking and questioning together, Jesus himself came near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were not open that they might have knowledge of him. 17 And he said to them, What are you talking about together while you go? 18 Then stopping, and looking sadly at him, one of them, named Cleopas, said to him, Are you the only man living in Jerusalem who has not had news of the things which have taken place there at this time? 19 And he said to them, What things? And they said, The things to do with Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, great in his acts and his words, before God and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers gave him up to be put to death on the cross. 21 But we were hoping that he would be the Saviour of Israel. In addition to all this he has now let three days go by from the time when these things took place;

 

22 And certain women among us gave us cause for wonder, for they went early to the place where his body had been put, 23 And it was not there; then they came saying that they had seen a vision of angels who said that he was living. 24 And some of those who were with us went to the place, and saw that it was as the women had said, but him they did not see. 25 And he said, O foolish men! how slow you are to give belief to what the prophets have said. 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to go through these things, and to come into his glory? 27 And he made clear to them all the things in the Writings, from Moses and from all the prophets, which had to do with himself. 28 And they came near the town to which they were going, and he seemed as if he was going on; 29 But they kept him back, saying, Do not go, for evening is near, the day is almost gone. And he went in with them. 30 And when he was seated with them at table, he took the bread, and said words of blessing and, making division of it, he gave it to them. 31 And then their eyes were open, and they had knowledge of him, but he went from their view. 32 And they said to one another, Were not our hearts burning in us while he was talking to us on the way, making clear to us the holy Writings? 33 And that very hour they got up and went back to Jerusalem, where the eleven and the others had come together.

 

34 And they said to them, The Lord has truly come back to life again, and Simon has seen him. 35 And they gave an account of the things which had taken place on the way, and how, when he gave them bread, they had knowledge of him.

Now G.Luke has a lot to offer on this. In v12 we're told Peter goes to the tomb (this isn't in all manuscripts but a majority so we'll keep it). This disagrees with other versions but apparently it doesn't matter.

 

We then move into the story of the two disciples on the road who bump into "jesus." The translation here tells us that the women saw a "vision" of angels (v23). The word is "optasia" and is used for "visions" or "apparitions." So even though the text seems to indicate pretty solid angel objects the author is telling us they weren't at all (or they were believed to be "visions" making visions pretty common it seems). They get a little beat down by "jesus" but when bread time comes all the "writings" become clear and he *poofs* away. Since he comes from prophecy this should only make sense that he is clarified by the writings but that's not the issue here.

 

They return but they're told that "jesus" appeared to Simon (Peter?). Did he? In v12 Peter sees nothing and goes home. The women see nothing but "visions" of angels or maybe actual angels depending on who we're to believe. So who is this Simon in v34 and when did this appearance take place? None of the texts have Simon (Peter) seeing "jesus" before the rest of the group (only Paul cites Cephas as first who we attribute to being the same as Peter but both Paul and James disrespect as some retarded whipping boy). So the two then give up their details. We're told by G.Mark that the two are not believed. So Simon saw him and is believed but these two aren't? G.Luke doesn't give us a chance to know since he has his "jesus" appear right at that moment. If they weren't believed it was short lived and G.Mark exaggerated the disbelief claim a bit.

 

mwc

[orlando]

Anyhow, reading 1 Corinthians 15 gives a better idea of what Paul seemed to think about the whole concept and it's not the same as the gospels who describe something extremely similar to the body we have now.

 

mwc

 

I take your point, but I am not sure the gospel body is quite like what we have now -- it can go through a locked door, appear and disappear, ascend etc..

 

But are you saying that Paul's version is so unconstrained by normal limits that it could well, if one wishes, appear just as a light and voice etc? [i think Paul says elsewhere that Jesus appeared to him on other occasions and taught him things, but I'm not sure of the references just now; also he says at one point that God revealed his son "IN me" - so maybe it was not an objective appearance at all but an inne experience?]. Also in view of the fact Paul was waiting for Jesus to return with power and raise the dead etc, what do you make of him popping back to make the odd appearance to people including Paul in the meantime?

[Neon Genesis]

I've been reading the book The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels and her theory is that the passion narrative became an essential doctrine of Christianity because if Jesus never literally suffered on the cross, then orthodox Christians would have no reason to make martyrdom a required doctrine to follow in their faith. Pagels points out that not all Christians believed martyrdom was essential for Christians. She points out some Christians believed that since Jesus died on the cross for your sins, then you didn't have to die on the cross physically for him, but Justin Martyr believed that martyrdom could be used as an effective evangelizing tool. The more Christians were martyred the more people would become sympathetic to their cause and would convert to their religion. Since the Gnostics didn't believe Jesus literally died on the cross, they thought the idea of martyrdom was foolish and didn't see it as a big deal to pretend to be a pagan if you got arrested for being a Christian and that you could always repent after you were set free. But the only way the orthodox Christians could make martyrdom a required practice of the faith was if Jesus really had suffered on the cross.

[mwc]

I take your point, but I am not sure the gospel body is quite like what we have now -- it can go through a locked door, appear and disappear, ascend etc..

It's reasonably human like with a few "ghostly" qualities but apparently has the ability (requirement?) of eating (among other things?).

 

But are you saying that Paul's version is so unconstrained by normal limits that it could well, if one wishes, appear just as a light and voice etc? [i think Paul says elsewhere that Jesus appeared to him on other occasions and taught him things, but I'm not sure of the references just now; also he says at one point that God revealed his son "IN me" - so maybe it was not an objective appearance at all but an inne experience?]. Also in view of the fact Paul was waiting for Jesus to return with power and raise the dead etc, what do you make of him popping back to make the odd appearance to people including Paul in the meantime?

I'm not so sure that Paul really knew what it was he was describing which is the reason for the analogy. I can say that if I take a tomato seed and compare this to the tomato plant that I would never guess, unless I knew ahead of time, that this plant came from that seed. They are entirely different. I can't think that a seed analogy would come into play if the plant was *mostly* like the seed it came from with just a few altered bits here and there.

 

Even though people didn't recognize the newly resurrected "jesus" as the old "jesus" right away they didn't see him as some entirely new being...like an alien of some sort. They saw him as some "guy" and he had the ability to allow them to know who it was or not (from what the stories seem to let on). So the plant is just like the seed for the most part.

 

From all this it appears that Paul and the gospels didn't seem to agree on what the pre/post resurrection bodies were supposed to be like. So who really knows what Paul saw, if anything, and considered to be his "jesus?"

 

mwc

[mwc]

I've been reading the book The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels and her theory is that the passion narrative became an essential doctrine of Christianity because if Jesus never literally suffered on the cross, then orthodox Christians would have no reason to make martyrdom a required doctrine to follow in their faith. Pagels points out that not all Christians believed martyrdom was essential for Christians. She points out some Christians believed that since Jesus died on the cross for your sins, then you didn't have to die on the cross physically for him, but Justin Martyr believed that martyrdom could be used as an effective evangelizing tool. The more Christians were martyred the more people would become sympathetic to their cause and would convert to their religion. Since the Gnostics didn't believe Jesus literally died on the cross, they thought the idea of martyrdom was foolish and didn't see it as a big deal to pretend to be a pagan if you got arrested for being a Christian and that you could always repent after you were set free. But the only way the orthodox Christians could make martyrdom a required practice of the faith was if Jesus really had suffered on the cross.

So there you have it.

 

It wouldn't make any sense to smash a plane into some buildings unless seventy-odd virgins were sitting there waiting for you, right? So they must be there and that got incorporated into the faith. Otherwise it's silly to think of ways that could have been placed there as a carrot for anyone.

 

So if "jesus" was a great martyr and Peter was also a great martyr and Paul was also a great martyr too how dare you denounce the faith. Cowards. In fact, pretty much *ALL* the apostles were great martyrs and you won't stay true to the cause? Let me tell you a little story called "The Passion of the Christ" and maybe it will change your mind? Do you really, by your actions, wish to have your savior suffer all that for nothing? To be crucified all over again? I think not. Stay the course.

 

But that's just me. I can't imagine anyone doing such a thing in the name of their religion. What's kind of ironic is your last sentence basically answers the question for itself. Seems Elaine and I see some things in much the same way but we differ in our cart/horse arrangements.

 

mwc

[Shyone]

But that's just me. I can't imagine anyone doing such a thing in the name of their religion. What's kind of ironic is your last sentence basically answers the question for itself. Seems Elaine and I see some things in much the same way but we differ in our cart/horse arrangements.

 

mwc

 

 

mwc

We all have something we are willing to die for. Our children or spouse, Country, religion or principle perhaps. Religion usurps the natural devotion and dedication to things that "matter" and then uses that to further its own agenda. Quite frankly, countries, platoons and gangs do the same thing.

 

In the end, it's a matter or priorities. We set these priorities based on preference in part, but consensus and peer pressure may overwhelm and replace our natural tendencies.