ZX432

I just finished reading A.J.M. Wedderburn's book Beyond Resurrection (or via: amazon.co.uk) for a class assignment. Personally, I did not find his arguments persuasive, and towards the conclusion of his book he just seemed to go off the deep end with his attempt to re-write traditional, biblical Christianity. Therefore, my position is that Jesus actually was resurrected; that the resurrection was miraculous in nature; and that there is credible evidence to support the resurrection, starting with the integrity of the biblical witness, as well as what most biblical scholars are willing to grant in terms of what Dr. Gary Habermas calls "The Minimal Facts" concerning the resurrection. Nevertheless, despite all of that, I would like to throw this subject out here for your input, and particularly to those who disagree that the resurrection took place.

If you do not believe that the resurrection took place, would you please indicate your rationale for rejecting it? I'm curious after reading Wedderburn, who, I assume, claims to be a Christian, if there are not better arguments than the ones he presented. If so, what might yours be? Please note that my inquiry is again a class assignment, so my responses will be only with those making a sincere effort at trying to answer the question. Thank you.

Koyaanisqatsi

You mean, beside the fact that the dead do not resurrect; there are no such things as gods; and the mythology this is based upon is, at best the result of ancient, Middle Eastern, scientifically ignorant, biased cult fanatics who already believe, more or less, prior to the Jesus myth that diseases are caused by demonic spirits and the dead can rise and that gods exist?

I would recommend you read up on Mithras (just google it or do a search here) and you write your paper in relation to the myth of Mithras, only never use his name until the very end and see what the response is.

In case you don't know, the myth of Mithras is almost identical to the myth of Jesus and it was around long before hand; indeed many have argued it is the template.

Oh, and the "minimal facts" conveniently omit one tiny point in Mark, where the passion narrative is first created. The tomb is not empty when the Marys and whoever show up; there is a "young man" (not an angel, just a young man) seated in the cave telling them that Jesus has "risen."

No one questions who this kid is or what the hell he's doing there, but why should such details as that spoil a good read?

Godless Dave

It's the same rationale I use to reject all miraculous stories. Second and third hand accounts written decades after the supposed event are not sufficient evidence.

David B

I reject the resurrection claims on the inductive basis that supernatural claims of many different sorts are made and believed in many different parts of the world, over many different eras.

As far as I know, many have been explained as error or fraud, but none have been substantiated in a way that satisfied the critical thinker.

Furthermore, the resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and I have taken on board the rule of thumb which says that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Accounts written by true believers a couple of generations after the alleged events were supposed to have taken place doesn't constitute such extraordinary evidence - in fact those claims have, because of the time scale, less credibility than the contemporary miracle claims made by followers of Sai Baba.

http://www.eaisai.com/baba/

ETA that first link is a home page. the one beneath gives accounts of some of the miracles attributed to this child molesting charlatan

http://www.eaisai.com/baba/

I don't believe them, either.

Are there any god reasons why I should believe one rather than the other, or believe either?

David B

angela2

I take it you don't believe that oral tradition was the source of those written accounts. Because if they are written accounts of oral tradition, the oral tradition might very well be contemporaneous accounts of the resurrection.

What do you make of Paul's acceptance of the resurrection? I think scholarship dates his letter as beginning in 50 or 60 CE? Is that right or does my memory fail me? If it is right, his letters aren't a couple of generations after the event.

Y.B

Paul wasn't present at the resurrection; in fact, he never saw Jesus personally. He just had a "vision".

Y.B

Oral tradition indeed was the main source of the written accounts (written decades later after the alleged events), and I doubt David B. is doubting that. The problem is that oral tradition is highly unreliable.

David B

I think it very likely that oral tradition was the source of those written accounts, and indeed others, like the Gnostic Gospels. But tales can grow in the telling, and, even if they haven't grown in this case (which I doubt), I maintain that even contemporary accounts of alleged supernatural events are unreliable. Do you think the alleged miracles of Sai Baba in my link above really happened like that?

A generation then. Paul was not an eyewitness, but he may well have been the victim of an extraordinary subjective event, perhaps as the result of some sort of epileptic seizure. Whatever - I see nothing in Paul to verify the resurrection.

That good rule of thumb, Occam's razor, tells me, though it is short of proof, that a naturalistic explanation of Paul's alleged experiences is more parsimonious than a supernatural one.

David B

ModernHeretic

Another question you might ask is what evidence do we have that Jesus was ever crucified in the first place? Of course you can point to Tacitus, but he's not exactly a contemporary (109 C.E.), nor does he actually mention Jesus by name (I think he uses the name 'Christus'), and the only extant copy we have of the passage that mentions Christus only goes back to the 11th century.

One theory I read on these boards is that the story of Jesus crucifixion was actually found in a play written by Seneca called Nazarenus. I don't know whether or not this is actually true, and even if it is, it still wouldn't disprove that Jesus was crucified, but it would give us a possible origin for the story.

Of course, you mentioned Paul, but if you actually read the letters of Paul he doesn't seem to make reference to the life of Jesus at all. He does of course mention that the crucifixion happened "in the flesh", however he does NOT say that it happened under Pontius Pilate, in Judea, or even on the planet Earth. Earl Doherty suggests that Jesus was supposed to have been crucified not by men, but by demons in a sub-lunar realm. Not to mention, it's been suggested that Paul may have been a fictional character based on Appolonius of Tyana (people have made similar claims for Jesus).

Of course, there's also the issue of having not only one, but at least sixteen different crucified saviors, many of which were believed in prior to Jesus.

Add to this lack of evidence the fact that we have no reliable account of anyone ever being ressurrected from the dead in all of medical history, and the fact that such a thing is not even theoretically possible, and it doesn't seem very likely that it's actually true.

I know this discussion isn't about the Jesus Myth, but if you're considering the historicity of the ressurection you really should question the historicity of the crucifixion, and indeed the existence of a person ever called Jesus Christ in the first place.

Koyaanisqatsi

BTW, It takes no generation to make shit up.

You're talking about a small group of already deeply superstitious theists; not tabla rasa atheists.

They already believe that such things as gods not only exist, but that they smite humans and test them and talk to them through burning bushes and heal them and afflict them and raise them from the dead. The Jesus myth is not the first one to incorporate resurrection from the dead by a long shot.

In short, nothing that supposedly happens to Jesus is anything new, nor would such fantastical claims be questioned by these people long before they ever hear the Jesus myth.

If you already believe that such things as gods and ghosts and demons and ghouls exist and I tell you a story of a god who claims to have been the son of the "one true god" and to prove it, he predicted his own death and resurrection and then was seen by the multitudes in order to get you to believe as I believe (which is the motivating force of all world cults), then what is not in question are any of the fantastical claims; only why the proselytized should join the proselytizer, all of which could have been claimed to have happened two days ago and there were be no questions from the majority of the people you told the story to.

To paraphrase a tired phrase, myth happens.

You don't have ancient scrolls of the hundreds (if not thousands) of poeple who heard Paul's stories and the myths created by whoever Mark originally was that all say, "This is utter bullshit," so that fallacy of the theist apologists saying things like, "Anyone could have gone to Jerusalem and checked on the story directly if they thought it was lies" is just nonsense.