Hello I_AM, and welcome to the Boards and the discussion.

I just replied to this point in my last post to jm. I apologize if I accidentally attributed that question to him, but I am trying to get through everyone's posts here.

Basically, Elijah's being taken up into heaven can account only for the Assension part of the Resurrection narrative, but not the expectation of a lone physical resurrection from the dead. Also, it is difficult to use Lazarus as evidence that such a thing could be believed before Jesus' disciples started saying He was risen. At the same time, if Jesus did rise from the dead, than believing that He also raised Jairus' daughter, or Lazarus is much more believable as well.

Since the guards story lacks multiple attestation, nor is it embarrassing, historians will generally not grant it as being historically true. It is plausible, and possible (and I certainly believe it is true), but it cannot be proven from the text as we can prove, for example, that Joseph of Arimathea was a real person.

The swoon theory has a great many problems with it, most of which I addressed in my reply to nat. If he (or another) should return to press this point, then we can explore it further, but right now I do not think the swoon theory can be rationally defended.

Each of the points I raised has multiple attestation (i.e. is mentioned by several Gospels, especially Mark and John, which are independent of one another), and are highly embarrassing to the early church, making them very likely to be historically true. In the absense of strong evidence against their historicity, they are generally accepted as being true events.

The existence of Judas as a betrayer, especially as one of the Twelve is another extremely embarrassing detail, and one mentioned independently in John and Mark. If Judas had been in on a conspiracy with Jesus to fulfill a prophecy, then it would have certainly been mentioned by someone in the New Testament (at least as some kind of apologetic defence of Judas' actions).

Another possibility is that Judas wanted to provoke Jesus into taking more decicive action (by staging the arrest, and thereby getting Jesus to miraculously save Himself), but that the plan failed, and he got to see his hero killed instead. This is pure speculation of course, and without any other evidence to support it, is not easily defended.

I agree I_AM. The point of this thread was to have sceptics offer their own theories on what happened after Jesus was killed. While it is easy to say that one does not believe a certain thing happened, it is far more challenging to come up with what did, in all probability, actually happen. We do not need to know with certainty, but as you have noted here, we would have to account for the events that we DO know happened.

I agree that the only hard evidence we have is from the Gospels (plus Paul). At the same time, there is obviously more than one theory as to what actually happened. Muslims, for example, deny that Jesus was executed at all, but I have never seen this defended on evidentiary grounds. Other speculations seem to also lack much in the way of genuine evidence. Finally, none of the competing theories appear to account for everything that happened after Jesus reportedly rose from the dead, and this has left me puzzled. What do sceptics think happened (if anything) to explain the events that began c. 30AD in Palestine.

As I said earlier, it is easy to be a sceptic about a thing. It is much easier to actually defend a belief, and since I consider history to be something about which we can debate, I want to hear what others think.

I hope that some will continue to make the effort.

Welcome again I_AM. And peace,

Nomad

Now that's a twist: I appeal to Scriptures - Nomad, I also appealed to Mark 8:31,32 where Jesus is said to teach his death and arising plainly and in the open! - and to Matthew 27 - his enemies were obviously listening - perhaps Judas was bright enough to pass the info on??? Hmm? But now not even Matthew counts as 'evidence' - and perhaps not even Mark 8. damn. I thought I was sticking to the evidence quite well.....Oh well just goes to show that 'evidence' based on these criteria can be anything you want it to be - even if it means dropping one part of Scripture for another....if it doesn't fit your pre -determined view of course....

O btw- I did answer your question: they did not anticipate it, but certainly were aware of it, disbelieved at first (except John who understood it all along and believed first of course...), but then believed due to multiple attestation/visions.
I like Mark 16 where Jesus appears to them all whilst in a meeting (mark 16) to yell at them for their unbelief. Jesus didn't even knock - he suddenly appeared. Jesus then took the express elevator up. Of course, not before doing alot of eating, cooking, household chores, vanishing acts, changes of form, being seen by 500 all at once, etc....
hey let me ask YOU one question:
why didn't Jesus appear to his enemies???
Wouldn't that have been the ultimate evidence - He could've settled the issue right then and there! Imagine this:
The risen Christ suddenly popping out in front of the money changers and giving them the soiled pants - yelling and retaking what was His - "See I told you I could raise this temple in Three days!!!
Ultimate comeback - and convincing.....
But alas, Jesus only appears to the faithful - just like Mary of Lourdes........

While we cannot be 100% certain about history, the ideas we hold about what happened in the past should at least be able to account for the events that we know did happen, and not only be plausible, but have some supporting evidence. I hope you would agree with this, otherwise we are left not knowing anything about history at all.

I agree, at the same time, we certainly can consider something to be more probable than another, and hopefully do so by rejecting as many a priori assumptions about what could have happened as possible. In the case of this thread, we are rejecting the miraculous, but looking to account for the rest of the events we know about.

While all of these things are true, if we assume that because some people have lied, therefore a specific person ACTUALLY lied, we still have the burden of proof to establish such a thing.

Further, disproving one extraordinary claim does not automatically disprove any other extraordinary claim. Each must be treated on it own, and evidence for and against it considered on their own merits.

You have not said which you believe max, but we have already agreed to reject the last option. Which remaining explanation do you find most likely, and why?

And what IS your claim?

As I have said before max, if you have a theory, please offer it. If not, no problem, and thank you for the discussion.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 02, 2001).]

As I explained jm, evidence that can easily be dismissed (like that which has no multiple independent attestation, nor is it embarrassing to the early church) is difficult to use in support of a theory. Just as it is difficult to prove a case on the basis of a single witness, or piece of circumstantial evidence, it is hard to build a theory around a lone Gospel account.

I apologize that I have not spent more time on the criteria needed to be considered acceptable historical critical evidence, but when evidence like Matthew's account of the guards at the tomb lacks these criteria, it is more easily dismissed by the sceptics.

As for Jesus talking privately with His disciples (as in Mark 8:27-38), we cannot assume that any of His enemies were listening, or knew what He was saying here. Speculating on what Judas may have told them may be interesting, but could hardly be used to establish that he actually did this.

Once again, evidence is considered to be more likely to be historical if it is embarrassing to the early Church, has multiple and independent attestation (like from Mark and/or John and/or Paul), or can be found outside of the Bible in non-Christian sources. None of your evidence passes any of these tests, and that is why I have dismissed it.

Are you referring to the passage in Luke 24:35-49?

In any event, I do not see Him yelling at them, but merely wondering at their lack of belief. If anything, however, this story helps to reinforce that the disciples were not at all prepared for Jesus' resurrection:

Luke 24:37-41 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"

He did.

Acts 9:1-4 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Galatians 1:13-16 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,

Yes it was, and yes it did.

Peace,

Nomad

Koy

Go with any theories you want. But offer your evidence. If you want to say the Gospels are frauds, go for it. If you want to say the disciples and early Christians were con artists, take your best shot. But if you think that anything that pops out of your fertile imagination will not be challenged, and that I will not ask for supporting evidence and arguments, then you have not been involved in enough challenging threads.

I am not interested in mere speculation and theorizing. I want to see how you account for what happened, and if you want to challenge any of the assumptions of the thread (like the burial tradition), take it to the appropriate thread. In the case of the burial of Jesus, the thread is called, Jesus Christ: Worth Burying in a Tomb?, and I have not seen you present any arguments there. In fact, aside from Earl, I haven't seen anyone really challenging the basic premise that Jesus was definitely buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

So get started please. I want to see your ideas, and your supporting arguments. Where it will take us, who knows, but I hope it will be interesting.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 02, 2001).]

Nomad, I did. I offered the synoptic gospels as proof of the resurrection myth.

Read my post please and respond to several pages of detailed deconstruction.

And please get your story right. If you're not interested in theorizing and speculation, then why did you say, "assume the resurrection was a fraud?"

You know what? Strike that. I don't care what you said or didn't say. Address the entirety of my post point-by-point please.

Thank you.

(edited for - Koy)



[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited April 03, 2001).]

Nomad -
Paul was not appeared to by the "Resurrected Christ" - but by a vision of Christ (who had already took the up elevator by then). Paul doesn't count - sorry....
Try again...........


As for Jesus talking privately with His disciples (as in Mark 8:27-38),

Therefore he only spoke about this privately?

Invalid inference. There's not enough premises to conclude that He spoke this only to the disciples privately. Indeed, we have evidence that the enemies knew about it and claimed they heard it from Him anyway.

Umm... how do you know this?

Yes. Reread the text please..

Could you please site some proof texts of this?

Nomad

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Koy:

Your continued evasiveness is getting tiresome Koy. But if this post is the one that you wish to use as an argument, so be it. From what I have read, you didn’t actually present an argument however, but merely a set of unsupported assumptions.

Try not to be this dense. Assume anything you wish, but support your assumptions. That is how debate is done. Sadly, you are one of the worst offenders on the boards for hurling unsupported assertions, and things are not improving here.

Yes.

If you are going to remove the Synoptic Gospels from your discussion, that is fine. I assume you will use John and Paul then. At the same time, I do not have to accept your assumptions, and will ask you to back them up.

You brought up the Synoptics. From what I can see, you still do not understand the operating premise of the thread. We are to assume that the resurrection given in the Gospels did not happen. Go from there, and anything you have to offer is open to challenge, and requests for supporting evidence and arguments.

Why have you confined yourself to the Synoptics? How did you make this leap?

I have not asked you to go to the next step, but if you wish to address that part, it would help build your case.

It is when you post things like this that I am further left to question your seriousness on this thread Koy. Do you understand how to offer evidence to support your claims or not? From your posts on this and other threads I have drawn the conclusion that you do not know how to do this. I hope you will at least try.

As for what kind of evidence you are allowed to use, choose anything you wish. It will be up to me to question it, and to see if it has any holes in it.

And there you go again. Even if the Synoptics are myths, that does not make them untrue. But if you wish to present this argument, you will have to support it. How do you propose to do this?

I have specifically and repeatedly stated that this thread assumes the bodily resurrection did not happen. I hope that this is clear by now, since I have no idea how to make it any clearer to you.

What you have done here is called an assertion Koy. Cite examples, back them up. If you are going to say that the Synoptics contradict one another, but not support that claim, I will merely say that they do not contradict one another. We are then both on the same level.

Just because it didn’t happen as described (and then only in Luke) doesn’t mean that Luke didn’t believe it happened. To argue fraud, you must establish that the perpetrator knew of the lie. How would you do this? Further, since the Assension is only mentioned in Luke, how does this impede on the credibility of Mark, Matthew and John?

Myth is fine. Again, do not mistake the word myth for fraud however. The City of Troy was thought to be mythical until it was found by archeologists.

No you haven’t Koy. You have asserted it.

If you cannot tell the difference between Star Wars and the Bible, then this will be a short conversation. Do not assume facts. Prove them. On the other hand, if you are giving us your opinion, and not calling your opinion facts, then that is acceptable.

If you can prove to me that you are not certifiably insane, then I am happy to look at it.

Don’t ask people to prove negatives Koy.

Now you see why I did not reply to this post. You have not offered any evidence at all, only assertions. The fact that you cannot tell the difference between your own opinions and facts bodes very ill for any rational discussion with you.

Since there is no evidence to support that Julius Caesar (Cleopatra, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, ect.) ever lived….

Now, don’t distract the discussion again Koy, and tell us what you think happened.

We have the Synoptics, the Gospel of John, the writings of Paul, and the existence of the Church itself, dating to c. 30AD in Jerusalem. I am trying to get you to tell me how these things came about. Thus far you have not told me.

Yeah, I saw that too. That is another reason I did not reply to this post originally.

Read my reply again. I will requote it for your benefit.

] We can compare any arguments and evidence you have in support of any theory you wish to put forward against that offered in support of any other theory. What I want to avoid on this thread, however, if dealing with the resurrection as being true. Assuming that the Gospels got the story wrong does not equate to the resurrection being an actual fraud. You can, however, make this argument if you wish.

Do you always repeat your questions this many times? Use ANY evidence you wish. I will do the same. We can then compare them to see how reasonable your theory happens to be. What we will not be discussing is the possibility that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are correct.

You have used the phrase “synoptic gospels” so often I am wondering if you know what they are. To help you out:

The Synoptics are Matthew, Mark and Luke. We also have the testimony of Paul and John to contend with. If you have other evidence (like the non-Canonical gospels, or other epistles) please do so.

You haven’t offered any evidence at all Koy. That is the problem.

When will we get to discuss your theories Koy? I am still waiting.

History “supposedly” records….

See why I do not take you very seriously Koy?

No. Constantine converted after Christianity had come to dominate the Empire, not before. So your answer is incorrect factually. This is why you cannot find evidence to support it.

Yes, I can see that from your posts.

And I am taking you less and less seriously by the post Koy. If things do not improve, we will be done again.

Q has not dates in it at all, nor do the Synoptics. We rely on John’s gospel, and the general agreement is that Jesus taught for about 3 years.

I will support my assertions. I hope you will do the same.

I am going to pass on your thread Koy.

Alright.

Paul was claiming the same thing Koy, and the Christian church existed long before Mark put quill to papyrus. These are known as historical facts.

By Tacitus? He was not a Christian you know.

What brutal military action from 30-320AD? Don’t tell me you are still clinging to your wing nut theories please.

That’s it? That’s the best you can come up with? You explain what happened from 30AD-320AD by claiming it all happened by state mandate???

Proof please.

No Koy. We don’t agree on anything. You are so completely lacking in historical knowledge as to make discussion with you nearly impossible. If you will not offer any proofs, evidence or supports in your next post, then we are done.

And if this is your idea of a working theory, and you continue to offer no proofs, I will classify you with the Holocaust deniers and conspiracy nuts of the world.

I hope you will get serious after this Koy. To be honest, you still look like a loon to me. So don't make me respond to this much stupidity again please. Offer arguments, supported by evidence, or this conversation is over.

Nomad

I'm impressed Nomad. Wading through a bunch of crud and actually responding to it took more patience than I had. Especially considering that its poster was seriously entertaining the notion that NERO secretly invented Christianity in an effort to strengthen the Roman Empire.