That makes no sense, Nomad. You say you want to know what happened after Jesus died and that we are to assume the resurrection was a fraud. If we are starting from this premise, then anything written which claims that it did happen would automatically be fraudulent according to the assumption and therefore comparatively useless to the deconstruction of anyone's theory on the aftermath of Jesus and the subsequent spread of Christianity.

Is this your intention or are you instead asking us to prove that the resurrection story is a fraud (vastly different from assuming it is a fraud and then theorizing on what actually happened to Jesus)?

You seem to want to have it both ways. You want us to assume a fraud and forward an alternate theory only to have you turn around and then you use the fraud as evidence against our theories?

Which is why I am sincerely asking you to explain what you want us to do: Prove it is a fraud so that you can deconstruct the proof utilizing the alleged eyewitness accounts, or assume it is a fraud and provide an explanation for why and how a fraud of this nature was perpetrated?

As to your remarks about my snide remarks being kept in check and your skepticism to whit, all I can say is:

(edited for addendum - Koy)


[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited March 29, 2001).]

WHoa man - I didn't say they were liars! Back off and think!! They actually believed Mary and the others - they just were embarrassed AT FIRST that Christ didn't 'appear' to them - given the chaotic turmoil and embarrassment it wasn't too long before the disciples themselves had 'experiences' with the risen Christ and documented the stories, and embellished them somewhat - hey, do you realize that even today people claim to have 'experiences' with the risen Christ -physically no less? I remember one claimant who said Jesus appeared to her on the left corner of the roof of her Kitchen (no I don't have any written documentation - it was on the ole Pat Robertson channel....). Do you think she was telling the Truth, perhaps she embellished a little? Was she a liar? Grow up man, you seem to forget how powerful and self-fulfilling belief can be.....


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?

James tried but failed – see Galatians – also Paul went to the gentiles where he won wide support – nice amounts of money were now pouring into the Jerusalem Church and the leaders were willing to give Paul some room despite the internal tensions.

The persecution of Saul against the Christians was quite forceful and the small religion would probably have succumbed to his energies.
BTW- I agree that Paul believed in his own conversion: but that doesn’t make his idea of taking over (and moving Christianity to new ground) any less forceful or implausible. You seem to want all these things to be black and white – they’re not. Psychology is a very grayish thing.... Actually Paul was the best thing to happen to Christianity. all that energy that was against them, was now for them!!

So why would Christians be any different, and percevere in the face of such persecutions?
Why not? Why ought they be the same?

I am not sure what you mean by fooled
Read up on it and you’ll see....

Still waiting, Nomad.

Let me repost the original assumptions again for you Koy:

About 300 years after a peasant Jew lived, was crucified and was buried, the religion He founded took over the greatest, and most cosmopolitan empire in all of ancient history. The question remains, how did this extraordinary event actually happen?
Now, the basic facts of the story are not supernatural, and are well enough attested to be pretty agreeable to serious historians. They are:

1) A person by the name of Jesus of Narareth was born around 4-6BC
2) His ministry lasted about 3 years c. 30AD
3) He was executed by crucifixion by then Roman governor Pontius Pilote, and was buried in a grave by Joseph of Arimathea
4) Within days of that event, Jesus closest friends, followers and even some of His family members were saying that the tomb was empty and that Jesus was alive again. They believed this against all opposition, and eventually (about 300 years or so) the religion that they founded swept over the Empire, replacing virtually every other religion the Western World had known to that point.

How did this happen? For the purposes of this thread, I would like to assume that the Resurrection did NOT take place. The rest of the events described above, however, are pretty much historically accepted as being true. How do you account for them, especially point number 4?

Now, you have raised the possibility that fraud was what happened. Cool.

Show us how you think this could have happened. Do not just assume it. If you look at the replies that have been offered by sceptics here, only jmcanany has suggested fraud. Iain and nat appear to favour the swoon theory. I see no reason to assume from the start that the evangelists that wrote the Gospels did not actually believe the story as they told it, but it is obviously a possibility.

What I am looking for is your theory Koy, then let's see how it hold up.

As I explained above and in my previous post, you cannot begin the discussion from an unproven assumption. On that basis we might as well begin an examination of the Bible by assuming that Constantine or Nero wrote it, then go from there.

A premise must have some supports Koy, if you wish to assume that the Gospel writers were participants in a fraud, give us some evidence and arguments to look at. If, at the same time, you want to suggest that the pre-Gospel resurrection accounts were also fraudulent, be my guest. But please support your assertions.

I am not asking you to prove anything conclusively, but I would like to see why or how you decided that the resurrection was a fraud, then we can examine how good your evidence and arguments really are.

Perhaps if you reread the premise of the thread, then you would better understand what it is actually about.

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.

Yes. As I said, I am not optimistic here, but if you do wish to offer some thoughts on the subject, please do. We can then consider them.

Nomad

Alright, so here I assume you mean that the resurrection experiences were self generated delusions or hallucinations?

Yes, I have heard of such things before.

I don't know if the experiences were real or not, but at least she had a framework within which she could come to believe that she had seen the risen Jesus. The disciples did not have such a worldview or even the ability to formulate such a possibility to see a lone individual raised from the dead.

What the disciples describe as having happened to them collectively (actually seeing, touching, eating with Jesus, feeling his wounds) is so beyond the pale of anything a 1st Century Jew could imagine that it is difficult to come up with how they could have done it, and convinced themselves that what they believed happened really did happen.

No he didn't. See Acts 15. (Please quote relevant passages when offering arguments jm)

So did James try to stop Paul or not?

The persecutions of Saul may or may not have been effective, but speculating on its ultimate effectiveness (especially in light of later persecutions that were even more forceful) seems especially problematic to me.

Of course Paul believed powerfully in his own conversion, and wanted to spread the Gospel. What I don't buy into, based on your arguments thus far, is that what he was teaching was really any different than what James, Peter and John and the other disciples were teaching. Paul just didn't have that kind of clout inside the Chruch during his lifetime.

Do not mistake the fact that we have more writings from Paul than any other individual that he was the most powerful Church leader.

Of course they are not black and white jm. I am looking to see if your ideas are coherent and explain and account for what happened.

Thus far you are a long ways from offering such an argument, but I am willing to look at any arguments and evidence you might have.

I agree completely.

I'm sorry jm, but a question is not an answer to a question. Would you answer my question please?

I have no idea what you are talking about here jm. Please treat my questions seriously, and offer some answers.

Thank you.

Nomad

I am not asking you to prove anything conclusively, but I would like to see why or how you decided that the resurrection was a fraud, then we can examine how good your evidence and arguments really are.

In other words Nomads wants you to disprove a man resurrected from the dead over 2000 years ago.

The fallacy of that should be apparent enough and of course it conveniently avoids having to support his extraordinary claim that such a thing did happen.

Nomad uses the term "evidence" as though we can do some kind of laboratory experiment to determine if a man actually rose from the dead. The reality of course is that all we have are a relatively few ancient documents from which we attempt to determine what people might have thought or what might have happened.

Given these choices (and perhaps others):

1. The resurrection story arose out of the myths and legends perpetuated by its follwers

2. The disciples invented (lied about) the stories on purpose to further their own desires/beliefs

3. Someone actually rose from the dead

a decision can be made on what is the most reasonable possibility. Nomad has apparently decided that possibility #3 is the most reasonable but is a long way from giving us good reasons why we should agree with him given the other possibilities that we know have happened throughout history.

Look. I know all you sceptics are skittish and such about actually having to argue in favour of what you do believe, and I want you to know that I do empathize, but max has gotten the purpose of this exercise exactly backwards.

We are starting with the assumption that the resurrection as described in the Gospels didn't happen. I have made this as clear as I can. I also think this is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, given that every single sceptic in the matter must already believe this.

What I want to know is what, if anything, the sceptic does believe happened. If you do not know, then you do not know. That is cool. But if you want to offer an idea, then let's hear it, then we can examine how well it holds up under examination. In other words, let's not take anything for granted here.

We can and do examine this on other threads max. If you want to discuss it, then start a new thread again. In the meantime, this thread should not be that hard. We ask questions about morality without God, so why not about history without God?

Well, the study of history is a bit more complex than this, of course, but I agree that providing 100% iron clad solutions to what happened in the past is pretty much beyond our abilities. At the same time, I think we should be able to develope at least some ideas as to what happened in our history. I hope you would agree.

Whoa there big fella. On this thread #3 is ruled out. So if you wish to choose from either #1 or #2, then please do so, and let's see where it takes us, and how well it holds up.

What do you think happened max? This is a mental exercise in which you get to put forward your thoughts, evidence, and supporting arguments. I certainly do not expect you to believe in the resurrection when we are done. Clearly you are not even open to this possibility, and I don't think it could be done in any event. Let's stick with natural history, act like historians, and see what we come up with. If the best you have is you don't know what happened, you don't know what happened, and that is fine. But for some, the need to know, or to at least keep asking questions in order to find out what we can know is pretty strong.

Interestingly enough, with most sceptics I have known, this curiosity is quite common in all areas except this one about what really happened at the resurrection (and a few other's like the evidence for Jesus' miracles in general). On this thread I am not asking such sceptics to reply. But for those that have ideas, please put them forward. Then we can talk about them.

Be well,

Nomad

No framework?

Sorry - they most certainly did - Jesus was understood to teach that He indeed would rise. Individually. The hope that Mary gave to them that morining helped enlighten them to this. Even the Jews understood this point - your point that a 1st century Jew would have no idea about this is a fallacy: Jesus clearly taught it and his followers and enemies understood it - they might not have thought that such a thing would happen, but Mary 's testimony answered that question for the disciples.
Hallucinations? Prove that the lady who saw Jesus on her refrigerator was a hallucination, and then perhaps we'll get into it?

Acts 15 was a point of clarification: Paul went to the gentiles and this rubbed James the wrong way: Peter then weighed in for Paul, thus quieting James, but James at least got in a few Judaizing rules in to the letter (Paul agreed to the minimal list). Galatians records where even Peter went astray after men from James came - men who pressed home the Judaizer tendency (James) - Paul then won the day by rebuking Peter face to face.

My story hangs together well - even if you don't like it.....

1. The resurrection story arose out of the myths and legends perpetuated by its follwers.

2. The disciples invented (lied about) the stories on purpose to further their own desires/beliefs.

A mixture of (1) and (2). What's difficult about it?

Michael

Hello again jm.

Unfortunately I don't think you really understand what I am saying here. You are trying to give the disciples knowledge that they just didn't have at the time of the resurrection itself. Yes, they understood what Jesus meant, but only AFTER the resurrection itself took place. If you have any evidence that they even had a clue that Jesus was going to rise from the dead, could you please point out the relevant passages.

For example, if they knew before Jesus was executed that He was going to rise again consider the following:

1) why were they so afraid that they fled (Mark 14:50)?
2) Peter denied even knowing Jesus (three times). Why?
3) they hid from the authorities, completely afraid (John 20:19).
4) Mary Magdeline and the other women were so afraid that they spoke to no one after visiting the grave (Mark 16:8)
5) when Peter and the disciples are specifically mentioned as NOT knowing that He would rise again (John 20:9)
6) the two disciples on the road to Emmaus show no indication that they even suspected that Jesus would rise from the dead (Luke 24:21-22), reporting that they were "astonished" by the women's words.
7) why did Judas betray Jesus if he believed that He would rise from the dead?
8) Martha (one of Jesus' disciples) testified that she believed in the resurrection of the dead, but only at the last day (John 11:24)
9) The testimony (reflecting the belief of Jesus' enemies) used against Jesus was not that He claimed He would rise again from the dead, but that He would destroy the Temple, and rebuild it in three days (Matthew 26:61, 27:40, Mark 14:58).
10) Thomas states clearly that he would not believe in the resurrection unless he sees and touches Jesus himself (John 20:25), echoing the doubts found in Matthew 28:17.

In fact, no where in any of the four Gospels do we see any prior understanding by any of the disciples that Jesus would rise from the dead. Every piece of evidence shows the exact opposite, and that their understanding came only after the resurrection itself came about.

Based on my reading of the Gospels, the disciples were, at best, puzzled by the reports from the women (Matt 28:17, Luke 24:22, John 20:2). I see no indication that the disciples believed anything (with the lone exception of John, the beloved disciple) about a resurrection prior to witnessing it themselves. The women's testimony is, in fact, held to be so worthless, that Paul fails to mention it at all in his own accounts (1 Corinthians 15:5-6), probably because he knew that women's testimony was worthless at that time.

On what basis do you think that Jesus' enemies believed such a thing were possible jm? They did not have the benefit of foreknowledge of the women's testimony. And as for the guards at the tomb, that may well be nothing more than a device created by Matthew to refute the claim made by the Sanhedrin that the disciples stole the body. We certainly do not have enough testimony to establish the historicity of the guards at the tomb with anything approaching certainty. You and I may believe it is true (I certainly accept the historicity of the guards at the tomb), but I see no reason for the sceptic to believe such a thing. Do you?

The problem with you analogy here, is that the disciples needed to produce multiple hallucinations in themselves, one another, and many other people (not to mention Paul himself, who prior to the experience itself certainly did not believe in Jesus' resurrection). Further, as I have stated very clearly before, the Jews of that time, and to this day simply could not construct such a vision for themselves. People cannot imagine a thing that falls so completely outside of their experiences that it would never occur to them.

Not quite jm. The dispute was very limited (and relatively minor) in its nature, and was concerned only with whether or not the Gentile converts would have to practice Jewish customs (clean foods, circumcision, ect.), and Paul carried the day. To quote from James:

Acts 15:13-21 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: "`After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' that have been known for ages. "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

As you will see from Paul's letters, he continued to abide by this agreement throughout his ministry, as did Peter and James. Thus we have no serious theological disputes amongst the apostles, even from the Church's inception.

Of course. Peter did have some difficulties letting go of many of his deeply ingrained Jewish beliefs, but Paul used the agreement established in Acts 15 to rebuke him, and Peter rightly repented of his nationalistic pride.

Unfortunately jm, you have failed to provide any supporting evidence for your theory at all. While any piece of imaginitive conjecture can always be made to sound reasonable, until it passes some evidenciary muster we cannot really treat it as a serious working hypothesis. Once again I will ask you to offer any evidence at all that could be used to support your thesis that the disciples and/or Jesus' enemies knew (or feared) that He would rise again from the dead. Also, if you could address my points above, that would be greatly appreciated.

I understand that I am placing you in a difficult spot jm, especially since you do not believe your own hypothetical story. But I hope you can appreciate that this thread is not about creating interesting fiction. I am genuinely interested in exploring any naturalistic possibilities that could account for the events that immediately followed the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, leading to the foundation and eventual triumph of the Church in the Roman Empire.

Peace,

Nomad