Cesc

Can anybody think of scenarios (within the HJ paradigm) of how the idea of Jesus’ historical resurrection was conceived?

I’m working here within the HJ paradigm. If you don’t subscribe to HJ, please don’t bring up the whole HJ/MJ discussion (unless it's relevant). If you want to participate in this thread please play along with the HJ paradigm for the sake of argument!

The ideas of Christian theology was conceived at some point in history by somebody. Most notably:

1. The idea that Jesus was divine in some way.
2. That his death was an atoning sacrifice.
3. The idea that he was resurrected from the grave.

So what came first historically speaking? Theologically and soteriologically speaking the death of Jesus is very clear: It was an atoning sacrifice, a ransom payed. But when it comes to his resurrection things are not so clear.

Apart from being a practised cult, one can see Christianity as a system of thought, a theology. And one can see this theology consisting from the beginning of two parts:

1. The death of Jesus. With its implications that the relationship with God has been restored once and for all with this the ultimate atonement sacrifice or ransom to pay for all the world’s sins.

2. The resurrection of Jesus. With its implications. But what are its implications? Is it the institution of the general resurrection of the dead? The coming of God's kingdom on earth? Does it primarily serve as ”proof”? Proof that Jesus was who he was (later) believed to be? Some sort of vindication over death?

Why not a Christianity where Jesus dies as the ultimate atonement sacrifice - period. He pays humanity's debt to God, who then grants eternal life. Why the resurrection? Who came up with the idea and more importantly, why? Did the belief in Jesus’ resurrection precede the belief in his atoning death?

The fact is, at some point in history, some people began to believe whole-heartedly that the man, Jesus, had in fact been raised from the dead by God, Yahweh, whatever the nature of this "man" might have been to these people.

Did the disciples steal his body and claim he’d been resurrected, as Bruno Bauer polemized, and thereupon expand the soteriological meaning of this resurrection? Or did somebody say, ”if Jesus were resurrected, that would mean the Kingdom is near, so let’s secretly steal his dead body and say that now God intends to resurrect everybody and death has been conquered etc”?

Paul is the earliest witness we have of this resurrection-belief. Apparantly he personally met and knew some of these people who (according to Paul) believed they had witnessed the actual resurrected Jesus, namely James and Peter. At least I believe its reasonable to suppose that these people had Paul convinced that they had personally witnessed Jesus as resurrected from the grave, whether actually thought they had or not.
Were they conning Paul? Were they delusional? How did they come to believe that the man Jesus had recently been resurrected?

outhouse

You need to figure out if people followed a physical resurrection, a spiritual resurrection, or both.

It could have started either way, and then the other developing at a later time in mythology.


Its my opinion the Resurrection mythology started right after his death before passover was over. A dream or vision would have been perceived as a spiritual resurrection and thought to be real.

aa5874

It is extremely easy to speculate. There is no need to.

This is like asking Atheists to play along with the existence of God.

What do you wish to achieve by "playing along" with the HJ paradigm when we already know the reason why it was claimed Jesus resurrected.

Jesus stories have recovered.

The author of the Jesus story presented what was common in antiquity--that Gods were figures of history and could DEFY death,

gMark's Jesus EXISTED as the Son of a God and BOASTED that he would Resurrect AFTER he was killed.

Whether or not Jesus did exist the Pauline writer was NOT the earliest witness to the supposed resurrection.

The EARLIEST story that Jesus EXISTED MUST Predate a Persecutor.

Effectively, the claim by the PERSECUTED Jesus cult MUST predate Paul the Persecutor.

1. The Pauline writer SPECIFICALLY stated that he Persecuted the Churches of Christ. See 1 Cor. and Galatians 1.

2. The Pauline writer SPECIFICALLY stated that there was ALREADY written sources that mentioned the Resurrection of Jesus on the Third Day. See 1 Cor.

3. The Pauline writer SPECIFICALLY claimed he was LAST to see the Resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor.

4. The Pauline writer SPECIFICALLY claimed that the FAITH he now PREACHED was ALREADY Preached since the time he was a Persecutor. See Galatians 1

5. The Pauline writer did NOT play of pretend that he saw Jesus Before the Resurrection. See All the Pauline letters.

6. The Pauline writer got his Revealed Gospel AFTER Jesus was resurrected.

Now, there is another problem or many more problems with the Pauline writings if you PLAY with the HJ paradigm.


In Acts of the Apostles and in the Pauline letters it cannot be shown that the Pauline writers were in Galilee or Jerusalem when the character called Jesus Existed the Son of God.

The Pauline writers may have been over 400 miles away in TARSUS when is was claimed Jesus was the Son of God and raised from the dead. See Acts.

The Pauline writers appear to be completely useless to PLAY ALONG with the HJ paradign.

Cesc

I think one can see in the resurrection-belief two aspects: a historical one, that the man Jesus in fact rose from the dead, and a "fertility" aspect, that is the element of resurrection itself. The latter is without a doubt to be seen in the framework of the ancient world view, that the whole cosmos consists of life and death and the cycles of nature, a world view shared by all humans, Jews and pagans alike.

This fertility aspect (fertility in the broadest sense) is what makes it possible to compare Jesus to the so-called "dying and rising gods" or the "mysteries" or the sun. The historical aspect however sets it apart from all of these. Nevertheless, there is still the fertility aspect, especielly considering that the resurrection of Jesus has to do with a new creation and eternal life for humans.

My point is, can one separate the fertility aspect from the historical aspect in the resurrection-belief? Was there ever a resurrection-belief that hadn't considered its own implications? A point in time where some Christians went "hmm, Jesus has risen from the dead! I wonder what that means." I don't think it's likely. If it started with a dream or a vision, then I supposed in it Jesus would be explaining to what end he had been raised. Doesn't it seem too thought-out to be merely somebody's random vision or dream?

Cesc

gMark's Jesus is a much later theological, literal figure. As such, Paul's Jesus represents more the original christology than gMark. Obviously Paul's Jesus (or gMark's) is more than just another god from antiquity that defies death, but I do agree that it's the same ball park, if you will.

I wrote that Paul is the earliest witness we have, not that he is the earliest witness, and I wrote "resurrection-belief" not "resurrection".

Cesc

What if it wasn't an hallucination, vision or dream, what options are left then?

aa5874

Once you admit you are PLAYING along with the HJ paradigm then you must also make it clear that you are playing along with the "fertility aspect".

But, in Jewish ritual sacrifices were killed and burnt. There is NO fertility aspect when one kills a goat or a bulls. The fertility aspect is non-Jewish.

The resurrection aspect of a God is also non-Jewish.

Even, when you play along it is seen that the Jesus story is not compatible with Jewish tradition.

Cesc

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

Yes there is. But I wasn't talking about Jesus' death, but about his supposed resurrection.
Ritual sacrificing belongs to fertility religions. And offering the firstfruits to Yahweh is certainly a fertility ritual, just as God offering his firstfruit, Jesus. OT religion is by and large a fertility religion. As opposed to "Judaism" as a supposed "religion of ethics".

outhouse

One doesnt need to look at "dying and rising gods" mythology. Most of the mythology is already present in the OT

We know by Apocrypha there was more then one resurrection version floating around.

fertility? only if your jumping through mental hoops that are not really there. The mythology is pretty clear on what it represents.

aa5874

No way. gMark's version of the story that Jesus resurrected was known before the Pauline letters. Paul's Jesus is unknown in the Canon. Even Paul in Acts does not know the Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus.

The story that Jesus was raised from the dead PREDATED Paul.

Paul admitted or claimed he Persecuted those who Preached the story that Jesus was raised from the dead.

In Acts, Paul got his Gospel after Ananias and the disciples conferred with him.

And further, all stories of Paul in or outside the Pauline letters place Paul after it was ALREADY claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

Was NOT Paul blinded by a bright light and heard a voice of the RESURRECTED Jesus in Acts?

The story that people believed Jesus was RAISED from the dead MUST have predated Paul.

Paul NEVER claimed he saw an actual Jesus so he MUST have heard that he was Resurrected.

There could have been No actual resurrection.

1. Paul claimed he was LAST to see the Resurrected Jesus.

2. Paul claimed OVER 500 people knew that Jesus was Resurrected BEFORE him.

3. Paul claimed or implied that he PERSECUTED the Churches that preached Christ was Resurrected.

4. Paul claimed it is found WRITTEN that Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the third day.

Now, it must be understood that the author of gMark claimed the vistors to the EMPTY TOMB told NO-ONE that Jesus was raised.

The story of gMark ENDS at the Resurrection with NO Post resurrection visits,

The Pauline story that OVER 500 people saw the Resurrected Jesus is AFTER gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

The Pauline post-resurrection story was NOT established at all in the EARLY Jesus cult Churches.

The Pauline resurrection story is NOT even attested in the Canon.

I wrote Paul is NOT the earliest witness that we have. Paul is the LAST witness in the Canon.

Paul's revealed Gospel must come After people BELIEVE Jesus was resurrected in order for him to appear authoritative.

The resurrection of Jesus could have ONLY been believed.

Paul was the not the earliest to hold such a belief.

In the Canon, Peter and the supposed James the Lord's BROTHER MUST Predate Paul in the Belief that Jesus resurrected Paul if they did Exist.

Peter and James MUST be earlier witnesses of the Belief of the Resurrected Jesus if you PLAY ALONG with the HJ paradigm.

You need to PLAY with the evidence or the written statements from antiquity not play with imagination.

It was the Pauline writers who themselves show that they were NOT the earliest witness of the Belief of the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3 NIV