Peter Kirby

Diogenes, are you being technical in your sense? It is oft noted that the event of the Resurrection itself isn't described in the New Testament. (Though it is, kind of, in the Gospel of Peter.) Or are you asking for evidence that people claimed to see a come-back-from-the-dead Jesus?

best,
Peter Kirby

Ulrich

I guess I deserved that, I didn't intend to ridicule you, just the notion that Christianity could not have spread like it did unless there was a physical resurrection. If you subscribe to that notion, then it was an insult to you, and for that I apologize. My point, as lost as it may be now, was that Islam has seen a more rapid spread than Christianity. Do you see that as a valid argument for the truth of Islam's creed? If not, then you should be able to understand my view on how the spread of Christianity has little to do with the truth of the resurrection.

As an aside, Script Monkey, though not technically my job title, is a good description of what I do. I sit in a cubicle with an metal grate to one side from floor to cieling (it is even referred to as the cage), which affords a lovely view of the hallway. I pound out HTML, JavaScript, and PHP all day, and occasionally people mill around out in the hallway and watch me, which apparently provides them some entertainment as I scratch my ass and pick lice off of my co-workers.

I did read Criddle's reply, and it did cause me to think about the question from a different perspective, which I admit lends more credence to the Christian viewpoint on the issue. The argument, however, is still nowhere near convincing enough to override my skepticism regarding the resurrection. Just the fact that early Christians believed the story is enough to account for this. They could have been deliberately lied to, or simply believed a story that was never intended to represent the truth.

These are just a couple of available options, the fact of the matter being that the rapid spread of Christianity is not a sufficient reason to believe that the resurrection is true IMHO.

Toto

I assume that you are just reporting this argument. In case you mistakenly think that it has any value, sociologist Rodney Stark (reviewed here) has given a decent historical reconstruction of how and why Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, which does not depend on any supernatural elements.

Steven Carr

Did the death of Rebbe Schneerson cause people to evaluate the claims that he was the Messiah?

http://www.vop.com/previous_broadcas...mber/04485.htm

http://www.rabbiyess.com/settingrecordstraight.html

Diogenes the Cynic

The latter. I am contending that there is no proof that anyone ever claimed to have seen a physically risen Jesus after the crucifixion. I should have been more clear. Obviouly no one is even alleged to have witnessed the resurrection event itself.

CJD

Ulrich, thanks for your sense of humor. Yes, I do see your point. And it is valid. I wasn't speaking of rapidity, however, so much as I was talking of sutainability (of belief, etc.).

Toto, firstly, I'm well aware of the pax Romana and most other natural, run-of-the-mill happenstances that 'helped' Christianity along. But secondly, come on! you ought to know that sociological analysis by definition cannot consider the 'supernatural'. I enjoy Stork's work, and I am a big Berger fan. Belief, religious or otherwise, is socially located. This doesn't disprove anything; it just gives a more full-orbed perspective on these things.

Regards,

CJD

CJD

Tsk. That's very unlike the first question you asked. There's some veiled references in my opinion, but they're well-disputed, as you know. Can I go ahead and roll at this too? Okay! :rolling:

Toto

Stark shows that, firstly, Christianity did not spread with any amazing speed. It grew at about the rate you would expect a new religion to spread, using social contacts as the main source of converts. Secondly, Stark's explaination answers your :huh: about how there could be "an expanding, vibrant community of Jesus people."

And I don't think that you have answered the question: "what is your evidence that a single human being ever claimed to have seen somebody named Jesus come back from the dead?" Are you claiming that there is eyewitness testimony behind the much later gospels? That Paul's references to Jesus' appearances is second hand testimony that someone saw Jesus? Both of those ideas are "well-disputed."

Diogenes the Cynic

How so. You made reference to "missionary activities by early Jewish followers of Jesus," which seemed to me to be an invocation of the "big bang" apologetic - basically, the argument that the direct followers of Jesus had a transformative and counterintuitive experience of some sort. If their Messiah was dead, then why did they become so evangelical and committed after his death? The problem with this is that there is no good evidence that the direct followers of Jesus (assuming there was a Jesus to begin with, which is not a given) ever did become so transformed or go on such a mission. We don't actually have any proof that anyone really claimed to have seen a physically resurrected Jesus.
I don't know what you're rolling at but if you want to laugh at your own inability to support your argument, who am I to stop you? :huh:

andrewcriddle

Rebbe Schneerson died of natural causes at an advanced age which causes somewhat different problems. (The problem IIUC may be not so much his death as the fact that even though his earthly ministry is over the final deliverance of Israel doesn't seem particularly imminent.)

More generally the Lubavitch group appear to be reinterpreting Jewish messianism using Kabbalistic ideas that are certainly late (Post 1492) and may well not be entirely independent of Christianity.

Andrew Criddle