Amos

The resurrection story is myth and is believed because it happens often and has happened often ever since the resurrected Jesus told us to follow him (no he never told us to say "thank you Jesus for dying on the cross" with the inference being that now I do not have to follow you).

The reason why you people do not understand this is because you obviously are not followers of Jesus of Nazareth and if you think you are as protestants I will tell you that you are not or at least some of you would have had first hand experience of this event. Next, it is only because you read with preconceived ideas that you have the wrong opinion of the event because a close examination of the words will prove that there is nothing magical about the resurrection story.

To see this a distinction must be made between Jesus and Christ for two reason. First, Christ was born unto Joseph and Mary and was to be called Jesus. Second, since Jesus was never addressed as Christ in any of the four gosples Christ was not known by anyone except Peter, who saw into the second nature of Jesus to perceive the Christ identity of Jesus. This dual nature of Jesus the God-human is also stated elsewhere in the gospels.

When crucifixion was about to take place, Pilate looked at "the man [in the image of God]" and found no fault in him. The Jews had the law by which Jesus-the-Jew was to be crucified (Jn.19:5-7) and so they did, but not until Pilate freed "the man" under the name of Bar-abbah which means "son of the Father" or "son of Man." From this follows that only the ego was crucified but not until all of his eidetic images had forsaken him to be recalled later in the Upper Room.

From this also follows that it is absurd to be called Christian and pretend to be a follower of Jesus because the life of Jesus as Christ did not begin until after Assention (except for the "fishing trip"), and thus it is impossible to follow Christ. Indeed, we should be called Jesuits instead and maybe, just maybe, Catholics know something protestants don't know.

Amos

lpetrich

Nomad:
Your post appears to contradict itself eh. Your first sentence says that there is no credible evidence for the Resurrection, while later you state that there is none whatsoever. I point this out only because we do have evidence for the Resurrection, including from eye witnesses (Paul, Peter, James, John, Mary Magdeline, Jesus' mother, other disciples and up to 500 more people). The fact that you do not find it to be credible does not make it non-evidence.

LP:
However, the accounts of that "evidence" are grotesquely contradictory, which suggests that the truth is significantly different from them -- even if there had been a historical Jesus Christ who had risen from the dead.

Furthermore, as Richard Carrier has pointed out, that's too small a miracle. Why not growing to 900 feet tall, clothing and all, and walking all over the world and speaking the languages of all the people he encountered? Being able to speak fluently in dozens of languages ought to be a really impressive miracle.

Not to mention even bigger miracles. Which reminds me of a line in a movie I saw long ago: why is it that miracles only happen in the Bible?

Nomad:
Now, all of that said, I am willing to take it as a given (for the sake of this discussion) that the Resurrection as described in the Bible did not happen. The question remains, what did happen, as something obviously did happen after Jesus died. Do you have a theory as to what happened, and would you be willing to offer it? In this way we can examine the strength of the case you are prepared to make.

LP:
Resurrection skeptics have plenty of theories; check out the Christianity section of this site's Library area.

Nomad:
We have an historical fact:
Christianity was founded in Palestine some time between 30 and 35 AD, based on the belief that a specific man had died on the cross, and had since risen from the dead. Given that the Resurrection did not happen, what did?

LP:
See above. And while you are at it, I suggest that you address the question of how the Koran had come to existence. Nomad, if you do not believe that it had existed eternally in Heaven and that it had been revealed to Mohammed by the archangel Gabriel, then what do you believe about it?

Nomad

Hi Dennis

I think you completely missed my point. I already knew that you reject the resurrection accounts of the Bible. Fine. What I want to know is if you have an alternative theory you would care to share with us. From your post it appears you do not, and that is cool.

I am looking for ideas from sceptics that have thought about this question, and have something to offer. Do you have anything?

Thanks,

Nomad

Nomad

But this is the problem eh. Either there is "no evidence whatsoever", or there is no evidence that you personally do not find credible. They are not the same thing.

Perhaps. But Andrew and I have both asked specifically what others here think happened. So go ahead and speculate. I would like to see what you believe, and why. If you simply reject one story, and have no idea what happened, then no problem. As I said to Dennis, my question is directed to those that have a theory they would like to talk about.

The eye witness testimony is found in the New Testament. John's is found in the Gospel of John, while Peter's is found in the Synoptics. Paul's is in his own letters. Unfortunately, anything written by James was almost certainly lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, but Paul tells us that James' testimony is the same as his own.

As I said earlier, you may reject this evidence, but it is evidence, and your rejection of it is based upon a purely arbitrary decision on your part.

Perhaps. No doubt some of it was verified in Paul's letters, as well as in the Gospel's themselves. After all, names are given, and many of the people in question were alive when these documents were written. Readers could easily check with these people on their own. Given the rapid spread of the church and its message, I would say that quite a few people did exactly this. As for surviving extant documents from all 500 witnesses that we can examine today, perhaps you are familiar with the total percentage of ALL documents written in the 1st Century are available to us today. I assure you, it is not much, and in another 2000 years no doubt a good deal of what is written today will not be around either.

Where do you come up with your ideas eh? Paul's letters do exist, as do writings of other early Christians. It is called the New Testament. On what basis do you reject all of it out of hand?

What is your evidence to support this belief please?

Thanks eh. I know that most of the people here do not know what happened. I am merely looking to talk with those that do have a theory.

Nope. And as I said, I'm not looking for you to accept the Resurrection accounts of the Bible. I take it as a given in this thread that the Resurrection as described did not happen. I want to know, from those who will care to try, what they think happened. If you don't know, you don't know. No problem.

Umm... whatever caused you to say this? Besides being a red herring (after all, why do multiple false stories about subject "X" mean that any stories about subject "Y" are also false?), you do not even appear to know what you are talking about here.

If this is true, then you have used a very bad argument to reach what may be a true belief.

Thanks for your thoughts eh.

Nomad

Toto

This is classic. Nomad practices the "broken record" technique of debate.

Nomad

Please pick one you like the best and offer it.

I do wish you folks could stay focused. The truth or falsity of one claim has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of any other mutually exclusive claim. For what it is worth, I believe that Mohammed and/or a disciple of his wrote the Qu'ran.

Now, no more red herrings please. I am interested in a serious discussion on alternative theories to the Resurrection. Thus far no sceptic here has cared to offer one he or she is willing to try and defend.

Nomad

Nomad

Hey Toto. Long time.

What was your theory on what happened?

Nomad

Toto

Well I thought that Dennis M offered a coherent theory, but you didn't. It appears that by "theory" you mean something that accepts most of the items of the Biblical account and tries to explain them away.

So tell me what would convince you that the Resurrection account was fictional?

lpetrich

Let us consider Earl Doherty's theory. He proposes that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament was 100% myth, so it's instructive to see how he handles that question. For full details, check out his site, http://www.jesuspuzzle.com -- I'll give a summary here.

In the 40's or thereabouts, Paul preaches a heavenly Jesus Christ, who was crucified and who and was resurrected in the heavenly realm. Paul made no mention of any of the contents of the Gospels, even when it would be logical for him to do so, and he showed no interest in visiting places where the Gospels describe JC as having lived. And the same is true of most of the other early Christians of his time.

A change comes when the Gospel of Mark is composed sometime around 70-100 CE; ED believes this to be a sort of allegory that was misinterpreted as an earthly career for JC.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed later; they include not only word-for-word copies of much of Mark, but also some shared material that has been named Q. And Q is very unlike Paul's JC; it is essentially a collection of various sayings, such as ethical maxims and vilifications of Pharisees.

And the Gospel of John is an even later elaboration.

On the way, one can watch the resurrection story grow -- and grow in often contradictory fashion, as if different authors were inventing different details.

lpetrich

LP earlier:
[Theories on JC's resurrection in the Internet Infidels library...]

Nomad:
Please pick one you like the best and offer it.

LP:
Earl Doherty's Jesus-myth theory, in which his resurrection is pure fiction with details elaborated over time.

And I'm not impressed with the "someone would have contradicted them" argument, since similar skepticism had not stopped Mormonism, Christian Science, Moonism, and Scientology from growing.

LP earlier:
[the authorship of the Koran]

Nomad:
I do wish you folks could stay focused. The truth or falsity of one claim has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of any other mutually exclusive claim. For what it is worth, I believe that Mohammed and/or a disciple of his wrote the Qu'ran.

LP:
I mentioned the Muslim view of the eternal pre-existence of the Koran in order to present an example of a religious claim that Nomad is reluctant to accept, so that he can better understand skepticism about JC's resurrection.