malookiemaloo

Greetings from a rather baltic Scotland.

For some time I have been surfing the atheist websites with great interest. Speaking as a Christian I do not brand you all as anti-Christs!

One question I have not found properly addressed by atheists is this.

When Jesus died, he did so effectively alone. All-well almost all-of his friends had fled. Judas had betrayed him, Peter denied him and the rest were keeping a low profile. Romans being Romans could well have crucified the disciples although Pilate may not have done so just to upset the Jews.

However one thing is clear. When Jesus died his movement was at an end. The disciples and other sympathers were in fear of their lives and were probably in hiding. They were frightened men. That was on the Friday.

By the Sunday, or soon afterwards, they were boldly proclaimimg the resurrection with no thought of their personal safety.

Question. What caused the change? If it was not that Jesus had risen , what was it?


Alistair aka malookiemaloo

-DM-

Alistair:

1) Your submission does not really constitute legitimate feedback given that you have not referenced any specific author and article.

2) The question you ask, however, is a legitimate question, but one which would best fit in an appropriate, open discussion forum. For that reason, I have moved your post (and my response) to the Biblical Criticism & Archaeology forum. [Note that it is possible that the moderators of that forum may decide that the discussion fits better in another forum such as General Religious Discussions, in which case they could move it again.]

3) Your question, what caused the change if not that Jesus had risen, represents a kind of reasoning fallacy (an appeal to ignorance). Regardless that no one can provide the real or the best answer, the absence of such an answer proves nothing whatsoever about the truth of the alleged Resurrection.

4) There are many theories as to what actually happened, but none of them are likely to be verified or falsified at this late date.

5) There are numerous reasons for doubting the truth of the alleged Resurrection as portrayed in the New Testament. For one thing, the details as related are so inconsistent as to be untrustworthy.

Here are some of my personal reasons for doubting the truth of the Resurrection:

--

1.) HEARSAY. What we know of the alleged Resurrection is based on the second-hand hearsay "testimony" of the Gospel authors, none of whom is thought to have been an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, and who--at best--simply repeated what they themselves had heard from others. Further, there were no actual eyewitnesses to the actual Resurrection-in-progress; the alleged "eyewitnesses" were witnesses not to the Resurrection itself but rather to post-Resurrection appearances only.

2.) INCONSISTENCY. There are far too many inconsistencies in detail between what one biblical author and another tells us about the alleged Resurrection for me to be able take it seriously. In fact, there are so many inconsistencies that the story has the earmarks of fiction. A perfect and omnipotent god could have, should have, and likely would have seen to it that the authors he allegedly inspired got the details of something as important as the alleged Resurrection right. [See Selected Inconsistencies, below.]

3.) NONHISTORICAL. There is a noticeable lack of historical corroboration not only of the alleged Resurrection itself, but also of the "great earthquake" [MT 28.2] and the resurrection of the Saints [MT 27.50-54] which allegedly occurred in conjunction with the Resurrection.

4.) PHONINESS: The story in MT 28.11-15 has members of the guard (which had allegedly been placed at the tomb even though Matthew is the only Gospelist to mention such a guard) accepting a bribe to lie and say that they had fallen asleep--a lie which according to many historians would have been a certain death-sentence for those soldiers.

5.) IRRESPONSIBILITY. Given that all of Jerusalem was allegedly stirred by Jesus' so-called Triumphal Entry, it would be irresponsible of this god-man to appear post-Resurrection--not to all of Jerusalem and/or to those whose testimony would be most convincing (e.g., the Sanhedrin, Pontius Pilate, Josephus, other historians)--but rather to only a relatively small number of people, mostly friends and followers.

6.) CREDULTIY. The people of Jesus' time were highly superstitious, gullible, disposed to believe too readily, often not sufficiently discerning to be able to separate fact from fiction.

7.) MYTH. The myth of a son of a god who was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected is not unique to Jesus. He wasn't the first and he wasn't the last for which some or all of these claims were made.

--

Selected INCONSISTENCIES follow:

-----------
Was there or wasn't there a guard at the tomb?
-----------
MT: yes
MK, LK, JN: no mention of a guard
[In fact, there could not have been a guard insofar as the women visitors were concerned in MK & LK given that they were planning to anoint the body with spices.]

-----------
Exactly who were the first visitors to the tomb?
-----------
MT: Mary Magdalene & the other Mary (2)
MK: both of the above, plus Salome (3)
LK: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (5 or more)
JN: Mary Magdalene (1)

-----------
Exactly what time of day was it when the first visitor(s) arrived.
-----------
MT: toward dawn
MK: after sunrise
LK: early dawn
JN: still dark

-----------
Was there or wasn't there a stone still in place over the entrance to the tomb when the first visitor(s) arrived?
-----------
MT: still in place, rolled away later
MK, LK & JN: already rolled or taken away

-----------
Was there or wasn't there an earthquake?
-----------
MT: yes
MK: LK, JN, none mentioned

-----------
Was there or wasn't there an angel present? If so, how many?
-----------
MT: 1 angel who rolled back the stone and then *sat* on it
MK: 1 young man *sitting* inside the tomb
LK: men (2 or more) suddenly appear *standing* inside the tomb
JN: 2 angels *sitting* inside the tomb

-----------
What did the woman/women do immediately after finding (or being told) that the tomb (was) empty?
-----------
MT: ran to tell the disciples
MK: said nothing to anyone
LK: told the eleven & all the rest
JN: the disciples returned home, Mary remained outside weeping

-----------
Where was Jesus' first post-Resurrection appearance?
-----------
MT: fairly near the tomb
MK: [not specified other than to Mary Magdalene, which presumably would have been fairly near the tomb]
LK: in the vicinity of Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem
JN: right at the tomb

-----------
Did Jesus allow anyone to touch him prior to his Ascension?
-----------
MT: he lets Mary Magdalene & the other Mary hold him by his feet
JN: on his first appearance to Mary, he forbids her to touch him because he has not yet ascended to his Father, yet he tells Thomas a week later to touch him even though he hasn't yet ascended

-----------
Did those who first learned this story believe or disbelieve?
-----------
MT: although some doubted, most believed because they followed the revealed instructions
MK & LK: the initial reaction was one of disbelief--all doubted

-----------
Exactly what was the order of post-Resurrection appearances?
-----------
MT: Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, the eleven
MK: Mary Magdalene, two others, the eleven
LK: two, Simon (Peter?), the eleven
JN: Mary Magdalene, the disciples without Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, then the eleven again
1CO: Cephas (Peter?), the twelve [really? one disciple was dead], 500+ brethren [120 in Acts], James, all the Apostles, Paul.


... and there's more.

-----------

The question is, would you base your life on, say, the Qur'an if it was as full of discrepancies in detail about its most important story as is the Bible with regard to the Resurrection?

-----------

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. There is a good deal of material on the Resurrection in the Secular Web Library

Vinnie

DM, amazingly, none of your post actually argues against the "resurrection experiences" of the first Christians.

See the prologue in E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus for more information:

This is something I was working on. The historicity of the Rez was only a minor subtopic and this is from the first draft:

(pretty lengthy for a minor subtopic eh?) I'm writing something up on atonement theology.


****************************
The arguments for and against the resurrection are numerous and go back a long time. There is a lot of literature out there both for and against the doctrine and naturally, some of it is better than others. Whatever we (skeptic or believer alike) make of the resurrection we need to make sense out of the early church’s belief.

An Ancient Creedal Forumula

Paul’s talk about Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 ca. A.D. 53-57 underlines the issue quite well: 1 Cor 15:1-5 1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.”

Most scholars recognize verses 3-5 as an early creed of the church. It’s important to note that Paul is reminding them something he already taught them (v. 1). Something which he learned which means it pre-dates his conversion (v. 3). We can call Paul a liar here if we so choose but on a historical level, this is contemporary, primary (firsthand or eyewitness) source data that belief in the resurrection developed at the latest, three years after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. This creedal formula could have originated as early as several days after Jesus’ death. It originates somewhere within this frame of several days to several years after Jesus’ death in circa 30 A.D. A concise treatment of this pre-Pauline formula of faith by John Meier will suffice:

“Since Paul is writing to the Corinthians ca. A.D. 55-56, since he converted them ca. 50-51, and since he himself became a Christian and learned this primitive creed from other believers in Jesus somewhere around 31-34, we have here one of the earliest creedal statements of the church, a creed that was formulated only a few years after the events narrated (ca. 30). The creedal formula probably underwent expansion over the years, with further recipients of resurrection appearances being added. But an early, if not the earliest, version had a basic four-part structure (1 Cor 15:3-5):
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
And was buried,
And was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,
And appeared to Cephas [i.e.,] Peter and then to the Twelve.” [5]

As Meier argues, this is a very early creed which dates to a time just after Jesus’ death on the cross.[6]

Disputing The Creed’s Authenticity

Some would try to dispute this evidence with several arguments. 1) Paul mentions the twelve here which is at odds with what the Gospels tell us. We know from them that Judas betrayed Jesus and that the Eleven saw him, not the Twelve. 2) Paul refers to a “spiritual body” while Luke (24:39, 42-43) flesh and blood Jesus who eats refers to a physical body. 3) There are no adequate proof-texts in the Hebrew Canon predict that Jesus would die and be raised on the third day according to the scriptures and those cited only support the notion ambiguously. 4) Paul’s testimony is only hearsay. For instance, he said Jesus “appeared” to 500 followers but did he interview them all? 5) Paul does not mention the empty tomb. I shall retire these issues in order:


1. The Twelve is regarded by most scholars as going back to the historical Jesus and with good reason. The notion of the twelve (which symbolically represented the twelve tribes of Israel) appears early and is multiply attested in various sources (Mark, John, Paul, probably L and most likely Q) which all occur in multiple types of literary forms (creedal formula, gospel narrative, sayings list and catalogue-like list). The Twelve, on historical grounds then, is very well secure. The resolution of “the eleven” of the Gospels versus “the twelve” of the Pauline corpus seems to lie in pointing out that this objection posits a false dichotomy between two different types of literary forms (Gospel narrative and creedal formula). A lengthy and formidable defense of the historicity of “the twelve” can be found below in a footnote which links to a piece I composed on this specific issue.[7]
2. Without even disputing the notion that there are some discrepancies on this issue between some of the pictures drawn up in Luke and Paul we should note that this does anything but negate the tradition that goes back to slightly after Jesus’ death (ca. 30 A.D.)! This issue is slightly irrelevant to me as I feel that the nature of the risen Jesus is not nearly as important as the actuality of the risen Jesus. But explanations for this have been offered. Raymond Brown explains this discrepancy as follows, “Luke (who does not claim to have seen the risen Jesus) may well have had a more concrete, tangible understanding of the risen body ( of Jesus) than Paul had (of the risen bodies of Christians).”[8] Many think Paul was referring to a transformed body. The whole seed/flower metaphor/ analogy. A full grown flower and a seed look radically different but the flower is actually the seed transformed. Paul may have looked on our earthly bodies as seeds but the resurrected body is a full grown flower. Paul calls himself a Pharisee in Philippians 3:5 and many believe Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection. This is the view that N.T. Wright speaks of here, “It is vital to grasp that for a Pharisee of Paul’s background and training the resurrection meant, inalienably and incontestably, the bodily resurrection . . . On the one hand, Paul didn’t see it as simply the resuscitation of a corpse. Jesus didn’t return into the same mode of physical existence as he had lived before. On the other hand, Paul didn’t see it as the abandonment of Jesus’ physical body. If you had suggested to him that ‘the resurrection’ might have occurred while the tomb of Jesus was still occupied by his corpse, he wouldn’t just have disagreed; he would have suggested that you didn’t understand what the relevant words meant. First-century Jews held a variety of beliefs about what God would do with, or to, his people after their death. But ‘resurrection’ was never a term covering lots of different options on that score. It had to do, specifically, with re-embodiment, with a new physical existence. When Paul talks about a ‘spiritual body’ (1 Corinthians 15:44), he doesn’t mean ‘spiritual’ in the Platonic, i.e. non-material. He means a body (physical, in some sense), which is constituted by ‘spirit’.”[9]
3. This does not pose any real difficulty. N.T. Wright answers this charge well, “[Paul] does not mean he can find half a dozen ‘proof-texts’ from scripture that he can cunningly twist into predictions of the crucifixion. He means that the entire scriptural story, the great drama of God’s dealings with Israel came together when the young Jew from Nazareth was nailed up by the Romans and left to die.”[10]
4. Paul says Jesus appeared to the 500 at the same time which makes it extremely difficult to argue an “internal vision” here. But Richard Carrier wrote, “I seriously doubt he interviewed over 500 people, and so should you.”[11] I tend to agree with Carrier on this issue here only so far, though. I would not put too much weight on Paul’s comment that Jesus appeared to over 500. Many scholars do not consider verse 6 (the reference to the 500) to have been part of the early pre-Pauline formula so this objection is hardly an argument against the ancient pre-Pauline creedal formula.
5. Paul is not required to mention the empty tomb and exegesis that entails what Paul did not write is highly speculative. Raymond Brown cautions the use of arguments from silence, “The NT writers certainly knew more of the Christian tradition than they were able or chose to convey in their writings; John 21:25 is specific about that. Therefore we should maintain a certain distrust of negative arguments from silence, as if the failure to write meant the failure to know. For instance, only Matt and Luke tell us about Jesus' virginal conception. Failure of other NT writers to mention it does not necessarily mean that they did not know of it (or, a fortiori, would deny it); yet neither can we assume that the knowledge was widespread. On the level of the literal sense, exegesis that embraces what the evangelist did not actually convey in writing becomes very speculative.”[12] Brown also raised a very devastating objection to those who would uncritically claim that Paul’s failure to write on something can be seen as a failure to know about it, “On the grounds that Paul does not mention an idea or practice, very adventurous assumptions are sometimes made about his views. For example, the Eucharist is mentioned in only one Pauline writing and there largely because of abuses at the Eucharistic meal at Corinth. Except for that situation scholars might be misled to assume that there was no Eucharist in the Pauline churches, reasoning that Paul could scarcely written so much without mentioning such an important aspect of Christian life.”[13] Some would also argue that Paul’s view (being a Pharisee/former Pharisee) on a bodily resurrection itself presumes that something happened to the body!

None of these objections and others like them hold much weight and we are left with this ancient church creed found in the Pauline corpus that goes back to just after the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.

It is also interesting to note that the author of the corpus, Paul, was no friend of the early church. In fact, he persecuted it. I will not comment on the nature of this persecution but we learn of it from Acts (7:58, 60; 9:1-3; 26:9-12; 22:1-5, 7-8, 20) which is regarded by the majority of scholars to have been written independent of the Pauline corpus where it is also found (Gal. 1:13, 23; Phil. 3:61 and though probably not written by Paul Tim. 1:13-25). Being found in Paul’s own letters makes it primary source data and very strong on a historical level.

F.F. Bruce lays out the apologetic that Paul’s conversion provides quite well, “ It is reasonable to believe that the evidence which convinced such a man of the out-and-out wrongness of his former course, and led him so decisively to abandon previously cherished beliefs for a movement which he had so vigorously opposed, must have been of a singularly impressive quality. The conversion of Paul has for long been regarded as a weighty evidence for the truth of Christianity.”[14]

It should be noted that none of this proves the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are certainly lots of differences found in the early Christian writings about the resurrection which cloud the issue. A lengthy and admirable citation from E.P. Sanders will suffice to demonstrate the nature of these discrepancies and where this historical information leads:

“Faced with accounts of this nature – sharply diverging stories of where and to whom Jesus appeared, lack of agreement and clarity on what he was like (except agreement on negatives) – we cannot reconstruct what rally happened. Throughout this book I have offered suggestions about what lies behind passages in the Gospels. On the present topic, however, I do not see how to improve on the evidence, or how to get behind it. I have views about parts of it, such as the movement of the disciples: they fled to Galilee and then returned to Jerusalem. Luke’s view, that they never left the environs of Jerusalem, is explained by the Jerusalemo-centric’ character of his two-volume work, Luke-Acts. But I do not pretend to know what they saw or just who saw it. The reader who thinks that it is all perfectly clear – the physical, historical Jesus got up and walked around – should study Luke and Paul more carefully. The disciples could not recognize him, he was not ‘flesh and blood’ but a ‘spiritual body’. He was not a ghost or a resuscitated corpse, or a badly wounded man limping around for a few more hours: so said Luke and Paul, and John (20:I4f..) agrees.

Some of these divergences are not difficult to explain. The author of Luke-Acts was an artistic writer, and he thought that repeating himself was not good style. Therefore, the risen Lord was with the disciples for only a few hours in Luke, and for forty days in Acts. The second account provides variety and seeks to assure the reader that the disciples knew precisely what Jesus wanted: he talked it over with them extensively. John 21 is an appendix, probably by a later author who wanted to handle the troublesome problem created by the fact that, by the time he wrote, all the disciples had died (see above, pp. 179f.). A more general explanation of all the gospels is that their authors had to give narrative accounts. Paul produced a list, but they needed stories. In telling these stories, each author went his own way.

But despite these and other reasonable explanations of the variations, we are left with an intractable problem. The followers of Jesus were sure that he was raised from the dead, but they did not agree on who had seen him.

I do not regard deliberate fraud as a worthwhile explanation. Many of the people in these lists were to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming that they had seen the risen Lord, and several of them would die for that cause. Moreover, a calculated deception should have produced greater unanimity. Instead, there seem to have been competitors: ‘I saw him first!” ‘No! I did.’ Paul’s tradition that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time has led some people to suggest that Jesus’ followers suffered mass hysteria. But mass hysteria does not explain the other traditions.

To many, Paul’s evidence seems most suggestive. He does not distinguish the lord’s appearance to him from that of the other appearances in kind. If he had a vision, maybe they also had visions. But then why does Paul insist that he saw a ‘spiritual body’? He could have said ‘spirit’.

That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”[15]

Whatever anyone wants to argue, belief in the resurrection came VERY early and this has to be explained.

-DM-

Given that I specifically stated, "Here are some of my personal reasons for doubting the truth of the Resurrection," one shouldn't find it amazing if my post did not argue against the "resurrection experiences" of the so-called first Christians.

On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that my post does argue against those experiences. It argues against those experiences by pointing out that there is what I consider to be good reason to doubt their authenticity.

Regards,
-Don-

Vinnie

Given that your list of personal reasons why you doubt the truth of the Resurrection did not argue against the Rez experiences but something completely irrelevant like Biblical inerrancy is amazing!

As stated: belief in the Rez goes back extremely early. Fraud is not a plausible option. You do not address this in your reasons. Why? Instead you argue against Biblical inerrancy and say the Gospel portraits are not completely consistent. Alert the press! A new find! Errors in the Bible overturn Rez Doctrine! ;-)

Lets look at the view you argued against:

So the first gen-ray-shun apostles were highly eschatological. They felt no need to write for future Christians who would not be there to read such writing. But when they passed away and when the eschatology-level simmered some we have works of a more permanent nature: narrative gospels written by at least second generation Christians. We see that factions also developed "I saw Jesus first", "No! I did" and what exactly happened was lost/ is not reconstructable. Theological modification also permeates the literature! Unfortunately this still leaves us with this as stated: "belief in the Rez goes back extremely early. Fraud is not a plausible option."

Those discrepenices you list mean nada unless you treat the bible in a very conservative fashion.

The Creed is traced back to the original followers of Jesus who had the Rez experiences.

Such inconsistencies would = fraud if the Evangelists were eyewittnesses. But they were not. Second gen-ray-shun Christians.

Developing material does not an argument against the resurrection make.

\

Does not demonstrate a valid reason for not accepting the resurrection.

5.) IRRESPONSIBILITY.

Well, his followers did fine enough of "convincing others". And the notion that ALL Jerusalem was stirred up is laughable.

Unfortunately that does not really apply to the first followers who, as E.P. Sanders deems a fact, had resurrection experiences of some sort.

Does not demonstrate a valid reason for not accepting the resurrection. I like myths myself, but unfortunately, Jesus is a figure of history. So were his followers after he died who had "Rez experiences". Both can be called "facts of history" depending on who you ask. How do we explain them?


As far as I can tell this is a discussion of the Resurrection not a discussion of whether or not the Bible is inerrant. Its conceded. The Bible is not inerrant. What next? What's that have to do with the Rez?

-DM-

Biblical errancy is relevant to anything which the Bible purports to be true--especially when it is claimed that the Bible was inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God" and when much of what Christians today believe about the alleged Resurrection comes from the New Testament.

Fraud cannot be ruled out as a plausible option. The fact that belief in the "Rez" goes back extremely early doesn't make it true nor does it rule out the possibility of fraud.

There is no need to alert anyone. There is nothing new in any of this. Please note, however, that I did NOT say only that the Gospel portraits are not completely consistent. Rather I said that they have the earmarks of fiction.

Note: Your sarcasm is unbecoming in a serious discussion--unless you do not intend to be taken seriously.

IF that is what you think I argued against, then you missed the point.

Speak for yourself. They mean a lot to me; that is why I presented them as some of my personal reasons for doubting the Resurrection.

That is probably a good theory, however it is not a fact in the sense that it can be tested or falsified.

Then, because John claims to have been the disciple who laid his head on Jesus' chest, John = fraud. I wouldn't want to put much stock in a book, or the stories that it expounds if any part of that book were fraudulent. Further, I don't put much stock in much of what Paul says, however I don't care to go into the reasons here.

Developing a meaningless sentence, such as the above, does not an argument against the "developing material" make.

Speak for yourself. For me, those reasons which I presented as some of my personal reasons mean a lot. Keep in mind that I have many other reasons as well, reasons which I did not mention here and which, when combined with those that I did mention (which I copied and pasted from a previous post) add up to a disbelief in the Resurrection as presented in the New Testament.

I agree that the notion that all of Jerusalem was stirred up during the so-called Triumphal Entry is indeed laughable. That is one more example of the tendency on the part of biblical authors to exaggerate (or perhaps even manufacture events). That is one more example of why the Bible cannot be trusted when it comes to the biblical portrayal of the Resurrection.

That the first followers had "resurrection experiences of some sort" was not the subject of either the first post in this thread (which started out in Feedback) or my response. Note that the author of the original feedback is basing his question on the biblical portrayal of the events, not on some theoretical "resurrection experiences of some sort" as proffered by E.P. Sanders--or you.

You seem to me to think of your personal opinions as fact when such is not the case. My personal opinion is that the reasons which I offered ARE valid reasons for not accepting the alleged Resurrection as it is portrayed in the New Testament. It is that, and only that, which is the subject of the original post and my response.

How do we explain them? As I said in my original response, "There are many theories as to what actually happened, but none of them are likely to be verified or falsified at this late date."

This is a discussion of the alleged Resurrection as portrayed in a book which cannot be trusted, therefore the details of the alleged Resurrection cannot likely be trusted. To me, that seems rather obvious.

While the issues you raise may have great validity for a discussion of "resurrection experiences of some sort" on the part of the "first followers," they have little validity, in my opinion, for a discussion of the Resurrection as portrayed in the New Testament--which is what this discussion started out to be.

Feel free, of course, to continue on with your discussion of "resurrection experiences of some sort" on the part of "the first followers," but that was not and is not my interest here. My interest was in responding to the feedback.

Carry on.

-Don-

[Corrected formatting error only. -Don-]

Clutch

What evidence, biblical or extra-biblical, but plausibly of first-hand provenance, supports these two specific claims, and for which people in particular? (This would be evidence of claiming, and being in particular executed on account of claiming, to have personally witnessed a resurrected Christ.)

ax

Just because someone is willing to die for a belief does not make the belief a universal truth. People are willing to die for what the muslim's hold to be truth, people were willing to die for David Koresh etc.

NOGO

I'm with DM on this one.

The inconsistencies in the resurection accounts are not simply a problem for Biblical inerrentists. Two or more witnesses who contradict in their testimony lead to a healthy degree of doubt. This is normal procedure in any investigation.

Note that although there are variations in the crucifixion accounts they do contradict as much as the resurrection accounts.

This to me points to fiction and not history.
You cannot sweep this under the rug of Biblical inerrancy.


I did not know that this issue had all but been settled.
The problem here is that you have a believer's mindset.

For example you believe that Jesus started all of this.
It never entered you mind the possibility that some people were expecting a so called "saviour" and they read and reread the OT in order to see what he would be like. And one of the things that they obtained throught reading the OT was as Paul says "He would die and resurrect on the third day according to scriptures"

So your comment about it could not have been fraud because it appeared too early is just not valid.

Jesus was expected to resurrect according to scriptures so the stories were created to make scriptures a reality. Unfortunately even the scriptures on which this belief was based cannot be found.

Family Man

To my mind, the claim that the early Christians truly believed they saw the risen Christ is one of the weakest arguments put forth by Christians as proof of the resurrection. People misinterpreting and reading things into events that are not there is simply too common for such an argument to be taken seriously. In fact, we generally disbelieve people to claim to have been abducted by aliens, to speak to the dead, to have the ability to forsee the future (and charge us $4.99 a minute for the privilege of listening to it), or to have been visited by angels. We laugh at cults that commit mass suicide for outrageous, but obviously deeply held, beliefs. Yet we're supposed to take seriously the claims that a 1st century peasant was really a god in disguise because other first century peasants believed they saw the guy risen. If I can't take the former seriously why should I take the last one seriously?