TimBowe

The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death, not by eyewitnesses. The Gospels were written by Greek-speaking Christians living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. The accounts they narrate are based on oral traditions. What's more plausible than a resurrection, that Jesus' family stole the body. Is that implausible, or is more plausible that the early Christians had visionary experiences. People have visions all the time, I'm not saying that's what happened. But it's more plausible then the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. That is not a plausible explanation. But it has to be stressed that we are dealing with ancient texts of a specific time that were not written by eyewitnesses. The only person to claim to be a witnesses to a resurrection appearance was Paul, and that "eyewitness" didn't know Jesus during his lifetime. What is the origin of the belief in the resurrection? One could say that the origin is simple deceit. That the disciples stole the body and claimed that he rose. But I would say that when studied closely it is indeed a vision that lies at the heart of the Christian religion. That vision described in greek by Paul as "he was seen" follows as Paul himself asserted reapeatedly "I have seen the Lord." So paul is the main source of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the belief in the resurrection. When people talk about visions they rarely ever allude to something we experience every night when we dream. That's our subconscious way of dealing with reality. A vision of that sort was at the heart of the Christian religion, and that vision with enthusiasm was contagious and led to many more visions.

Joan of Bark

Another explanation is that Jesus wasn't dead when He was removed from the cross. A thread exploring this idea can be found here.

Sheshbazzar

Returning to the ORIGINAL POST
Which was and is about the the subject of the Biblical texts.
Moreover, in 'Paul's' claimed 'vision', by his 'own' account Jesus DID NOT appear to him, he did not actually see a visible resurrected 'Jesus'; All that he claimed to have seen was "a great light" and that he 'heard' a voice. (Acts 9:3-4 & 22:6-7 26:13)
Interestingly 'Paul' admits that those with him did not hear (or at least could not understand this alleged 'voice' -Acts 22:9)

And then there comes in a further problem of exactly -what- it was that this alleged voice was supposed to have said to Paul on that day.
In the first account;
Yet over in Acts 26 the alleged 'voice' becomes much more verbose, allegedly saying;




'Paul's' own testimony as to the contents of this conversation are in conflict, and untrustworthy, on a witness stand he would certainly perjure himself in presenting such a varying account.
It was the one, the other, something else, or nothing at all.
There will be no resolving the facts of the matter on the basis of this particular wittiness's self-perjuring testimony.
Someone is a liar.

Deus Ex

Technically, that would be the testimony of the anonymous author of Acts. It does seem the different accounts are conflicting.

Paul claimed in 2 Corinthians 12:2 to have visited the third heaven. Whatever that means?

Sheshbazzar

The anonymous author of Acts is writing in the first person singular;
"I fell on the ground..."etc. etc.
Not quoting 'Paul' <sic> but evidently employing literary license to invent an imagined conversation, one to which he himself was by no means privy.
bleah! and all this contradictory crap is supposed to be accepted as Gawds infallible words?

wordy

Paul and the anon writer in Acts maybe both belong to a religious/political tradition that uses visions and interpretation of personal experiences that serves as role models for others to follow?

If I get it at all it is very similar to how Sam Harris do in his first book. "The End of Faith"
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-one/

He describe in the book how he experimented with drugs and meditation and he traveled to Asia and learned from many different persons there and it took many years but the end result was that

Sam Harris personal experiences was so compelling to him that he decided to get into Neuro Science to get scientific research to confirm that what he felt is relevant knowledge about our relation to the whole Universe.

To encourage fellow Neuro Scientists and other Scientists he invited them to one week of silence at a meditation center????? to share his personal experiences interdependently with him.

When I read Paul and the rest of the Epistles I see same or at least almost identical faith in personal experiences.

1. I personally experienced Jesus and believe he is a live god that can do wonderful things and he promised that you too can do such if you have unquestionable faith in him and submit and commit yourself to him .....

2. Go out and make everybody aware of this good gospel. The salvation is here through Jesus.

Sam Harris see the salvation in the methods that made him feel at one with the universe. Everybody should do as he did and feel the same personal experience and that will save them. Faith in the personal experience.

Paul seems to have that one too?



To all those who don't know me. I am an aggressive atheist and not a believer in Christ Jesus or a believer of personal experiences of being at one with the whole Universe either and

That Urantia should not be in this thread so thanks to Moderators for being firm on that. GRD is better place

aa5874

Your entire post is filled with unnecessary assumptions. You cannot use assumptions as proof, evidence or as coroborrative sources. All that is certain in the Gospels is that the Jesus described therein could not have existed.

A detailed examination of your post will show numerous assumptions treated as facts.

There is no evidence or credible source external of the NT and Church that Jesus lived or died during the time of Tiberius.


These are more assumptions that cannot be shown to be true. Virtually nothing is known about the authors of the Gospels. No author of the Gospels did declare that they were Christians.

Next, it cannot be assumed that the initial Jesus story was based on oral tradtions when there are no anecdotes of Jesus as a Messiah or deified Jew in any writings of that time external of apologetic sources.

The resurrection of Jesus in the NT was written as the truth.
The Church writers claimed Jesus did truly resurrect. The resurrection was fiction.

A plausible explanation of the resurrection is rather useless.

At least one author claimed he used eyewitnesses or information from eyewitnesses and the Church writers claimed that the author of gMatthew and gJohn were actually disciples of the supposed Jesus.

The story of the resurrection is either true or false.

It is not necessary for an author to have a vision to write fiction.



The Pauline writer may have lied when he claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

In Acts 9, Saul/Paul was blind when he encountered Jesus.


It cannot be assumed that Paul was the main source of the resurrection story when it cannot ascertained who Paul was or when he wrote. The Church writers appear not to know who wrote the Pauline Epistles and when they were written.

The Church claimed there was only one Paul who wrote all the Epistles, scholars have deduced that such is false.

There are indications that the Pauline letters were written after the writings of Justin Martyr, or some time after the middle of the 2nd century.

And further, the Jews or the Pharisees believed that there would be a resurrection after death.

The resurrection story, (even the crucifixion), in the Gospels may have been derived from the works of Flavius Josephus.

There is just no records external of the Church of a deified Jewish Messiah called Jesus during the time of Tiberius, the entire Jesus story is fiction, and that includes the resurrection.

TimBowe

From Europe A History

Sheshbazzar

Jesus didn't resurrect_ because he never lived_
Nothing more than an imaginary character created by and written about by a demented and half-baked religious cult.

TimBowe

Burridge 2004, p. 34

Van Voorst 2000, p. 16