Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-06-2007, 08:05 AM | #21 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Midwest
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for the accuracy of the gospels. I'm just asking, if the gospels aren't accurate, what actually happened to cause the rise of an early tradition, while all the players were alive and engaged with people who heard this tradition, that the 12 and the apostles saw Jesus (with the appearance to the 12 possibly being at the same time)? Kris |
|
12-06-2007, 08:17 AM | #22 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Midwest
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
I agree with you. But my assumption in post #1 was that Paul is citing a tradition in 1 Cor 15:5-7. It may not be a tradition as early as that in 1 Cor 15:3-4, and it may not be a creedal tradition, but if it is a tradition nonetheless, then it was not just distant Corinths that would have heard it, and it likely dates earlier than when Paul wrote it in 1 Cor 15. The issue I keep bringing up I think deserves a good answer: How did the tradition begin and survive that the 12 and the apostles all saw Jesus, with the 12 possibly being at the same time, while most all of the players were still alive to hear this tradition circulated about them and others were able to ask them about it? Kris |
|
12-06-2007, 08:32 AM | #23 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le
Posts: 8,446
|
Mass delusion is a well documented phenomenon. Many cults during that time period and area used psychoactive drugs. If a group of people got together expecting to have a certain kind of vision, took their drugs, and supported one another, I bet they'd all swear to having a very similar vision.
|
12-06-2007, 08:43 AM | #24 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
|
Wouldn't be ironic if this entire "tradition" (of the resurrection) began as the result of a single exaggerated report from a single individual? A conversation something like this:
Peter: "I tell you, fellas - I saw him. I saw Jesus after he was crucified and died. He came and talked to me." The crowd: "No way." Peter: "No - really. In fact there were 11 others with me at the time." Richard Carrier has a nice piece on this site called "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire" in which he talks about the gullibility that was common in the mindset of that era. Here's a snip: If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson believed when he composed his own version of the gospels, Jesus may have been an entirely different person than the Gospels tell us, since the supernatural and other facts about him, even some of his parables or moral sayings, could easily have been added or exaggerated by unreliable witnesses or storytellers. Thus, this essay is not about whether Jesus was real or how much of what we are told about him is true. It is not even about Jesus. Rather, this essay is a warning and a standard, by which we can assess how likely or easily what we are told about Jesus may be false or exaggerated, and how little we can trust anyone who claims to be a witness of what he said and did. For if all of these other stories below could be told and believed, even by Christians themselves, it follows that the Gospels, being of entirely the same kind, can all too easily be inaccurate, tainted by the gullibility, credulity, or fondness for the spectacular which characterized most people of the time. |
12-06-2007, 10:27 AM | #25 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 1,848
|
I read the following somewhere, more or less.
Mary Magdalene's house turned up, many centuries after the gospel's time, in France. Actually 2 of them turned up. One in each of 2 towns that then argued about who had the"real' house of Mary. So the worthy people of town #1 sent a group to Jerusalem who returned with the good news that their house was THE 'real' one and the house in the other town was a fake. They were able to say this cos they found in Jerusalem the vacant bit of land where mary's house had been before somehow migrating to France. It must have been the right house cos it was exactly the same size as the vacant bit of land in Jerusalem. Positive proof. |
12-06-2007, 10:35 AM | #26 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 1,848
|
I've seen the head of St. John the Baptist.
It's in the Topkapi palace in Istanbul. Fair dinkum. Trust me. There's another head of St. John the baptist in a church in Rome. And another in Damascus. And Antioch. About 11 heads in 11 places all told if I remember correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheadi...hn_the_Baptist |
12-06-2007, 12:35 PM | #27 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Midwest
Posts: 140
|
Ben,
Actually, after a little more reflection, I'm not so sure 1 Cor 15:5 ("he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve") does imply a simultaneous vision to the 12. It reads just as easily (or more easily) if "the 12" is a group separate from Cephas, not a group that Cephas is a part of. This would also be consistent with Paul's emphasis that the appearance to the 500 was "at one time" with no such qualifier by Paul on the appearance to the 12. This also makes the hallucination idea magnitudes more plausible IMHO. Lot's of individual visions/dreams/sensing of presence, but no simultaneous group visual experiences. This, combined with the social factors in establishing those who would have authority to teach/preach, led to the tradition that Jesus appeared to the 12 and to the apostles. From there, it doesn't seem much of a stretch that the later gospel legends would have the appearances to the 12 as a simultaneous group expereince. The most difficult thing this would seem to leave for explanation is that of an initial authority structure that involved 13 instead of 12 people. Given later gospel tradition that indicates otherwise, does anyone have any thoughts about the plausibility of an initial Christian hierarchy of Peter at the head and 12 other disciples (13 instead of 12 total)? Kris |
12-06-2007, 12:47 PM | #28 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ben. |
||
12-06-2007, 01:43 PM | #29 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Midwest
Posts: 140
|
No problem Ben, I appreciate your opinions --- Kris
|
12-06-2007, 02:22 PM | #30 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hiya,
Quote:
Quote:
Modern NT scholars take the view that not one single person ever met any historical Jesus. Iasion |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|