Toto

Yes, but what is the basis for that opinion? Is it just the idea that the survival of Christianity was so improbable that there has to be some sort of extraordinary event to explain it? How do you balance that explanation against alternative explanations - for example, that there was no empty tomb, but a later Christian movement invented the story to solidify its foundations? That Jesus did not make an impression on first century writers because he was also an invention of later writers?

krosero

Let me try and find the passage and see what we get.

Toto

It's from The Historical Figure of Jesus by E P Sanders

krosero

The quote is not in The Historical Figure but rather in Jesus and Judaism (p. 240). He starts by discussing some of the "religious types" that have been used to describe Jesus, and he settles on the conception of Jesus as a prophet, but of the sub-type called "eschatological charismatic." He discusses some of the ways in which Jesus was unique, which is to say different, from Judas the Galilean, Theudas and the Egyptian, but he also sees similarities, which prompts him to disagree with the ways that people in the past have seen Jesus as utterly, undefinably unique. Sanders says,

"I worry a bit about the word 'unique'. Others also thought that they spoke for God and were appointed directly by him to lead his people into the kingdom. What is unique is the result. But, again, we cannot know that the results springs from the uniqueness of the historical Jesus. Without the resurrection, would his disciples have endured longer than did John the Baptist's? We can only guess, but I would guess not."

So Sanders leaves it at a bare remark. Whatever his basis, though, I find myself agreeing. Jesus had similarities and differences with the other men (including John), but his story was utterly different from theirs in the matter of success/failure. The other stories ended with defeat and featured no vindication, except perhaps in the honor accorded them by their followers. The Jesus story featured a distinct victory over death and defeat. Do I say that it was the only story of the period that featured victory after defeat, or the only one that featured a rebirth of some kind? No, I don't think that Easter alone can explain Christianity's survival; but I do agree with Sanders that without Easter there would have been no survival.

Now whether Easter literally took place, is a question that I don't think any of this can help with.

Matthew_Green

A friendly suggestion is that you give a brief summary of your arguments for rejecting the empty tomb and perhaps a critique of Bill Craig's arguments for an empty tomb (i.e. the lack of tomb veneration).

Just curiously, how did you come to be invited or requested to give this speech?

Matthew

Peter Kirby

Larry Taylor asked me to come and talk.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Chili

Good for you Peter if you are happy with it.

The following question would remain unanswered but you may pose it as a closing statement wherein Jesus was the reborn Joseph who's human condition was the cross that Jesus carried and whereupon he was crucified.

It allows Christians to be wrong throughout history yet maintains the real message of Paul and the Gosples.

The evidence of the HJ is that Rome is built on it.

Jesus was raised means that he was taken up into the upper room where he served subservient to intuition. This leaves the tomb empty but a good place to get drunk since there is no beer in heaven.

Pilate

"Tell it like it is":
Regardless of its beliefs, Christianity survived (and flourished) because it is 'the fittest.' Darwin's law "survival of the fittest" applies here. The reason for Christianity's success is this: What people want Christianity has it.
Christianity fulfills the needs of most of the people on this planet. (This statement, in my opinion, is true, regardless of the fact that Christianity has made the world a worse place to live - it has set Christians against non-Christians.) Most people fear death and what will happen to them after death. Christianity dispenses this fear. Most people want friends and a social life. Christianity provides friends and a social life through its churches to people, from the time they are born to the time they die. Christianity caters to the family. Christianity provides entertainment: all kinds of fun activities (for the whole family). That is what people want. The Christian laity is not worried about the validity of theit dogma. That is secondary. Who cares about the details of the Bible? People don't want to know ('don't confuse me with the facts"). They just want their needs met.
Most people want a job to make money. Christianity provides jobs: Christian businesses will hire other Christians (they support their own). Most people want money. And there is a lot of money in the Church. People bequeeth fortunes to the Church, and their gifts while they are alive are tax deductable.
Christianity provides wellfare for the poor (our governement has given money to churches to give to the poor- you and me pay for this). You can go to distant places around the world and if you belong to a church and you find such a church there, the people of that church will welcome you and take you into their homes (brothehood). There is a long list of why people want to be Christians, or to belong to the Church. And this list is what makes this religion "the fittest." There are millions of highly motivated Christians who want to keep their organization growing and enlisting new members. They offer special help to those who want to promote the cause. Who really cares if Jesus rose from the dead? Christianity has the momentum to keep going even if this belief goes away. It will replace it with another belief. This religion has been changing and evolving. Just as Christianity took the place of ancient religions, "another Christianity" will eventually, and gradually, take the place of this Christianity.
As a result of all this momentum, Christianity, today, rules the western world, and it has in its disposal the greatest military firepower. Christianity controls the countries of US and England and a few other countries.

Now, Atheism has been around hundreds of years before Christianity. It has not been accepted by the people because it does not fufill their needs. That is how simple it is. There is not one "Atheist church" in America that boasts more than 200 members attending. Obviously, Atheism is not fit. Regardless of how you and me feel about it. This is more or less the way it is. Isn't it?

dost

Hi Peter

All the best with your talk. I hope you discuss the "appearances". According to Craig, scholars generally agree that the disciples and others had Jesus appearances and that the most logical and rational step is to accept that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

How such arguments may be countered etc., would be great as far as I am concerned.

Also, if possible, it would be terrific to have a transcript of the talk...or if its being taped, then perhaps put it online so we can download it.

lunachick

Best of luck, Peter!

That is ubercool news. :notworthy