Here I am not sure you are understanding the purpose of this thread jm. In your scenario, we have Mary seeing someone (the gardener), but he does not then go and see anyone else. The power of the sightings of Jesus (especially regarding the disciples and Paul) is so great that they launch a revolution that swept over the Western World. They did not report second hand visions, but their own witness testimony, as we have demonstrated to us in Acts and the Epistles as well as the Gospels.

And here I am not sure that you are understanding the nature of this thread, and its underlying premises. Here we are talking largely with sceptics and nonbelievers, many if not most of whom are naturalists, materialists, or at the very least, anti-supernaturalists. At the same time, even these people will concede the fact that Christianity exists, and has so since c. 30AD. Most also grant that Jesus lived and died on a cross (or at least swooned if we go with nat's position), and was buried in a tomb. Finally, most will agree that this tomb was empty.

Now, rather than compel these sceptics to take the Christian explanation for what happened as the only workable theory (since obviously they have rejected this view), I would like to know what the DO think happened. Have they given this any thought at all? Clearly some of them have (see nat and Iain's posts above, as well as numerous articles, essays and books on the subject). This thread can then test how viable their arguments are based on the evidence available to us from history. If those arguments do not look very viable, the naturalist sceptic may have to fall back on the answer that he really doesn't know what happened, and that is cool, but at least both the sceptic and I (plus anyone else that wishes to participate in this thread) has the benefit of gaining a greater understanding of one another's points of view. That, in itself, makes this exercise worth while in my opinion.

This is EXACTLY what rational atheists do all the time jm. They weight their beliefs in a thing based on the quality of the evidence available to support that belief. On this thread, so far, the leading explanation appears to be the swoon theory, and I am willing to examine their evidence and the strength of the claim. As to where it will lead us, none of us can know with certainty, but hopefully we will learn something.

I'm not sure what question you think is being begged here jm. When we investigate an historical claim, we can use our powers of reasoning to evaluate the available evidence, as well as alternative theories. While it is acceptable to say that we both reject the only available theory, and refuse to offer an alternative, it is hardly very satisfying. Human beings are inquisitive, and when we encounter a puzzle (and the existence and success of Christianity is a very big puzzle), anyone with any degree of curiousity at all is going to want to know what happened. Maybe we won't really know, but that does not make the pursuit useless. On that basis, almost all of the discoveries of all of human history would have remained unknown and unknowable to us, and that is not how Western minds (at least) work.

Actually, this is not circular reasoning, nor have I asked us to discount the evidence, only the conclusion that Christians have drawn from that evidence. In fact, I am going to ask the sceptic, through his theory, to account for each of the pieces of evidence we do have (i.e. the testimony from witnesses, the empty tomb, the absense of a body, the persistence of Christianity, ect.). If their theory cannot adequately account for these things, then I hope that they will eject it (or at least eject those parts that do not fit), and keep looking. For many, the quest is at least as important as the answers, and since Jesus Himself tells us to seek so that we can find, and ask so that it might be given to us, I will continue to do this, and encourage others to do so as well (including those that do not like my answers).

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited March 26, 2001).]

It seems I'm a bit late at responding.

If I understand correctly, we are to assume that the disciples were in fact claiming that there was an empty tomb soon after Jesus was buried and that they had seem him.

Your assumptions are so close to assuming the resurrection happened that you don't leave much wiggling room. If the resurrection didn't happen and Jesus' disciples were claiming that Jesus' tomb was empty, then there are a few possibilities. One is that nobody new that the disciples were saying this except for the disciples and their friends. Another is that other people heard about this and ignored them or else threatened or persecuted them. Another is that they someone went and pointed out that the tomb wasn't empty. Another is that they went and found that the tomb was empty and then blamed the disciples for stealing the body.

This of course all assumes that the disciples were claiming that the tomb was empty right away. Perhaps they started claiming that they 'saw' Jesus (the way Paul does, in visions) but didn't say anything about an empty tomb.

Perhaps different stories were being passed around in different Christian groups in the decades after Jesus' death. Stories grow in the telling. Stories that seem like they 'must' be true are taken as true. Certainly if Jesus is 'alive', then the tomb must be empty. Surely the disciples saw that the tomb was empty. Once the suggestion is made, it may be taken as fact, especially if 'revealed' in a vision.

The question is, of course, how did the information get into Mark and then the other gospels? Can we be assured that Mark was written with the knowledge and approval of the original disciples? Perhaps their knowledge and disapproval? Perhaps without their knowledge?

To prevent the growing of legends, you need either nonChristians or the Christian leaders keeping close tabs on what stories are being passed around and written down. I see no reason to assume that the Jewish leaders were that concerned with the doings of the followers of Jesus. From what is mentioned and not mentioned in Josephus, it seems that the Christians were not making much of a fuss or nuisance to warrant attention.

The more interesting question is, could Mark have been written and passed around even if the original disciples knew the story wasn't completely accurate? This depends a lot of course, on when Mark was written. The later Mark is dated, the less likely it is that the original disciples will be around. Even if they were around when Mark was written, would they have known about it? Would they have cared? There were probably different stories in every group. Were all the disciples going to travel around the area trying hard to make sure that everyone understood the story right? Did the disciples even agree on what happened? After all, who saw what, when, where? According to the Gospels, the post-resurrection events were pretty confused as to what happened to whom and where.

The acceptance of the Gospels as canonical perhaps occurred without the input of the original disciples. Later generations did their best to try and decide which writings were true and which weren't. There was probably a variety of claims as to which disciple approved of which writing.

Even if one or more of the original disciples knew that Mark, for instance, was not an accurate account, and even if they spoke out about it to some of the groups, I don't see why this would prevent it from eventually being accepted by later groups of Christians, who either didn't know about the disciples' complaints or else derived their info from a group unaware of the disciple's complaints.

These are some of my thoughts on the issue. Given the variety of Christian groups living in a variety of regions, and given the tendency for stories to grow in the telling, it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus could have been crucified, not resurrected, and yet Christianity grew and with it the stories grew to include an empty tomb and some resurrection stories. There is also a feedback. The better the stories, the more the stories get passed on. The more they get passed on, the more they accumulate legends.

Hi PhysicsGuy and welcome to the discussion.

First, I take the empty tomb to be a given largely because virtually all serious historians on the subject believe the tomb was empty. For a lengthy discussion on the topic, take a look at the thread Jesus Christ: Worth Burying in a Tomb?.

If you wish to dispute this assumption, then please offer your evidence that Jesus was not, in fact, buried in a tomb (the objections you raise were thoroughly debunked in the other thread).

The first to claim that the tomb was empty was Paul, and he learned this tradition within 3 years of the event. We also have independent reports of the empty tomb from Mark and John, and on this front very few historians challenge the report. Finally, Jewish tradition and law itself would have required Jesus to be buried (I don't have time to get into all of the supporting arguments, I refer you again to the other thread. If you would like to comment on any of the posts, please do so).

Thank you again, and peace,

Nomad

P.S. I do not have time to get into your arguments on the historicity of Mark and the Gospels and whether or not they came from witnesses, but that is also accepted. You may want to take a look at my thread on Redating the Books of the New Testament. I think it is a pretty safe bet that a good many of the details I have outline on this thread are safely considered to be historical. If you wish to challenge any of them, I would appreciate seeing your sources.

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited March 27, 2001).]

Nomad, thanks for the reply. I will read through the other threads.

wow...dueling theists....

In your scenario, we have Mary seeing someone (the gardener), but he does not then go and see anyone else. The power of the sightings of Jesus (especially regarding the disciples and Paul) is so great that they launch a revolution that swept over the Western World.

AS I said before, no one -especially the disciples - wanted to be outdone by Mary: John made sure he wrote many years later...that it was he who believed first - before Mary that is - and not only that, but even without seeing Jesus - so not only is John being careful to report his priority in time - but also in superiority (I believed first without even seeing). And really think of how embarrassed John was: wasn't he the disciple "whom Jesus loved"? Now why would Jesus appear to Mary and not to him?

But jealousy is only part of the story: the disciples believed Mary was honest. They really believed her (and hence some of the jealousy), but as they met together, they decided it best to affirm Mary's story - it got around fast- the two to Emmaus heard about it, met some stranger, and then later insisted it was Jesus. The sightings took a life of their own, grew and the disciples - very embarrassed that no one had appeared to them - fabricated many stories about Jesus concerning themselves outdoing everyone else's stories (John said the whole world could not contain the amount of books..etc...).

Later on, Saul, seeing an opportunity to take over this religion that was just about to be die out (by his own hand ironically enough), fabricated his own story to gain leadership in the floundering religion (Saul was not happy being the Jewish Chief Priest wannbe - he had a revelation all right - a revelation of how to take over the world - sort of the religious analogue to Alexander...). Paul easily won the day, given the fear that he put into many Christian's hearts at first: who would upset this unbalanced person, who just might flip out, become a Pharisee again and lead another persecution? Paul gained a quick following - but Paul and the Jewish Leaders of the early Church never really did get along that well.........Paul ensured Christianity's (his own) success by making it viable to the Greeks by easing any Judaistic laws that would prevent the gentile masses from taking it seriously (the gentiles - being mainly religious anyway - were easily converted by the energies of Paul and his small band of heroes and soon a groundswell of converts grew and laid roots). Top rival James never really was at ease with this - but was killed early. Peter was a push over - and basically never gave Paul too much trouble - at least not as much as James did....Peter later granted Paul the right hand of apostolic fellowship by admitting that Paul's writings - no matter how strange/hard/unintelligible were Scripture too. Paul easily won the day after the diaspora and gentile conversions.

The early martyrdoms were just what the doctor ordered: having such a 'revolutionary' religion and the kind of persecution which followed it made converts hard in their resolve to stick it through. Periods of tolerance wre interlaced with periods of presecution, but the religion survived until Constantine, under which it flourished.
Then the Church took over and fleeced its members: and forged the Document of Constatine which fooled everyone for nearly a millenia (even fooled Aquinas) - granting land and political power to the Roman Church. Etc....

All right, Nomad, all kidding aside, I've read through the whole thread now and I'm going to take you up on this one more time (by my counts, this is the third time you've posted this exact same "thought experiment" , but hey, it's all in good fun).

I'll start by quoting you for my guidelines:
and

Before I do, however, certain guidelines of my own need to be included here before a serious discussion can take place:[list=1][*]If we assume that the Resurrection is a fraud, obviously we must also then assume that any author who wrote about the Resurrection (i.e., the anonymous authors of the synoptics) are also frauds[*]What is "most" plausible shall be defined in the common man sense of the word (from Websters): "PLAUSIBLE: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious; appearing worthy of belief"[*]Any attempt on your part to break the rules you have established (e.g. counter-arguing that the synoptics are not fraudulent by quoting from them or offering any information from them at all as counter evidence to my speculation) shall end any serious attempt at addressing your request[/list=a]

Before I launch into this I just wanted to establish terms and see if you agree to them. If not, please feel free to addend and modify.

Also, unlike other posts, I will refrain from snide character remarks or backhanded insults to your intelligence and address only the issue of plausible explanations of the Resurrection myth assuming the synoptic accounts to be fraudulent.

Agreed?

Alright, I have seen this argument before, and it seems plausible to me that John, as the BD, does want to be the first to claim that he believed without seeing the risen Jesus. This would certainly enhance the message he is trying to convey to his readers, who certainly would not have the chance that he and the other witnesses had to see Jesus alive again. I also agree that Mary Magdeline presents an embarrassing problem for all of the Gospel writers, yet each included her in their stories.

Why do you think the evangelists did this?

Very true. This falls into what is known as the criteria of embarrassment, and leads most historians and theologians to classify the fact that Mary was the first to report seeing Jesus alive as being probably historical (even if they reject the resurrection itself).

The men on the road to Emmaus are found only in Luke (and the later redaction of Mark 16), so this part of your theory does not really account for the story as told by the other three Gospels, nor by Paul himself (who neglects to mention the embarrassing fact that women were the first to find the tomb empty, and to see the risen Lord).

And here we run into a major problem again. If you want to accuse the disciples of being liars you should provide at least some supporting theory for this assertion. So far as I am aware, historians and theologians believe that the disciples were honest men, and the motive to lie does not automatically make a person a liar.

Is it possible, in your view, that the disciples really did believe that they saw Jesus alive?

None of this makes any sense jm. On what basis can we assume that Paul did not believe in his own conversion experience? Do you have any evidence that Paul was a con artist?

I would say that the disciples and James would have been in an excellent position to stop Paul if they wished. Also, why do you think that Christianity was dying out in the late 30's when Paul converted?

This part seems plausible to me, since Paul was definitely at the forefront of denying that Gentiles had to convert to Judaism in order to become Christians. At the same time, Jesus Himself seems to be very interested in converting all nations, and never mentions the need to convert to Judaism first. It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have influenced the Gospel writers directly, since we have no evidence of real dependence by the evangelists on Paul (or even that they knew who he was, outside of Luke).

James was killed in 62, and Paul is believed to have died in 64-65 after Nero began his persecutions. Paul converted most of his churches and wrote most of his letters prior to James' death, so this part doesn't really work for your argument either.

What evidence do you have for this? Paul's letters and Acts seems to show that there was some tension between these two men (see Galatians 2:9).

Paul was dead before the diaspora (coming after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD).

At the same time, I agree that Paul and Peter, both living in Rome in the early 60's, did agree on theology. Without question the two supported one another, reconciling well before either died.

Why? Most religions were snuffed out by persecutions (see Mithras, Isis, even Jewish missionary work), and this is a BIG argument used by sceptics against the later church (that persecutions were the only way to wipe out rival faiths). So why would Christians be any different, and percevere in the face of such persecutions?

Yes. In fact, many believe that it flourished so well (even in the face of the most severe persecutions right before Constantine converted in 313), that Constantine thought it was politically expedient to convert. Once again this does look odd, especially given what most sceptics consider to be the absurdity of the Christian religion.

I am not sure what you mean by fooled. Also, if persecution didn't work against Christians, then why did it work against the much older and established pagan religions?

Thank you for your thoughts jm.

Nomad

You have started by making a false assumption. Once again, the assumption of the thread is that the Resurrection as described in the Gospels and by Paul did not happen. If you wish to argue that this makes the Gospel writers and Paul con artists and/or liars, then you must prove your case. You cannot simply assume it.

On that basis, I am willing to examine your evidence for such an accusation.

It is fallacious to start a discussion by making unproven assumptions. If you actually are serious about this thread, then I welcome your contribution. Please offer your arguments and supports. We can see how well they hold up.

To be candid, given your history on these discussion boards, not only with me, but with other serious posters, I am very sceptical of this promise from you. Never the less, I am willing to listen to what you have to say and to discuss it. I will, of course, be asking you to back up your beliefs, claims and arguments, but I think that you would agree that this is fair.

I look forward to your post.

Nomad

Regarding the thread that Nomad cites, "Jesus Christ: Worth Burying in a Tomb?" I've just added a reply to Secweblurker regarding Sejanus, Tiberius, Pilate and Philo.