copernicus

I agree with DM, Family Man, and others. It is not so much a question of proving the "Rez" story wrong as giving reasons to believe in its plausibility. Family Man is right on the mark when he asks what it is about the resurrection story that is more believable than the multitude of other similar claims that most of us reject as implausible. There has to be something more there than the argument that a religious claim has to be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be discarded as unreasonable.

Vinnie

Dub post

Vinnie

The bible shmible. Lets think of the material in terms of individual works rather than as a "canonized book". "One should be cautious of statements claiming "The Bible says . . ." even as one would not state, "The Public Library says . . ." when one means to quote from Jane Austen or Shakespeare." (Raymond Brown)

Inerrancy is not relvant in historical reconstructions. No one talks about "inerrancy" when reconstructing history from the works of Josephus. The doctrine of inerrancy has no real direct bearing on whether a bodily resurrection occured or not. The trust-worthiness of the sources we would argue the Rez from do! The NT texts are commonly cited and this is important here.

I pointed out a source which goes back to just after the crucifixion. You want to talk about later second generation sources and their errors and ignore this one. Yes, the nature of these second generation sources do suggest that we cannot know exactly what happened but as pointed out, two things are clear: 1) belief in the Rez goes back VERY early and 2) the first followers has Rez experiences. This is what needs to be explained. Not whether it was 5.58 am when they set out or 6.07 am. Many of your differences can be reconciled. I think a good number could be eliminated. But I would agree that not all of them can be.

Why not? Why is mainline scholar E.P. Sanders wrong when he says, "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.’ "

What is your argument against these notions? The case against fraud seems very persuasive.

Agreed. it does not necessarily make it true but on a historical level it is the job of historians to reconstruct history and tell us what happened. So, do you dispute that the first followers had "Rez experiences"?

of course the fact that the belief is ancient does not rule out fraud. Who argued otherwise? Fraud is ruled out by the arguments mentioned by Sanders.

I agree that sarcasm is unbecoming in a serious discussion but that would certainly not rule out sarcasm here in this thread.

Your personal reasons that you have articulated thus far are not reasonable. You may continure to hold them if you wish but I feel that you should know they are not tenable.

I'll take your retreat as "point conceded". I am discussing history. Not biology, physics or astronomy. On a historical level my theory is good. It is a historical fact.

When did John claim to lay his head on Jesus' chest? And thats a good response: "I don't put much stock in what Paul says". That isn't exactly sound scholarship or a good way to do history but I digress.

Hey I agree with you there. I don't accept the notion that all the details of the Rez from the NT are true.

I agree with that if you mean "all the details" of how its portrayed in the NT.

I'll carry on with others thugh, since you seem to be interested in refuting inerrancy.

Gurdur

Vinnie,
allow me a question (normally I never bother with this whole area and forum, but I'ld like to ask you your personal opinion on this):

Let's say you've adduced all the reasons to rule out conscious fraud.

Yet, IMHO, you haven't ruled out unconscious fraud, or better said, self-deception --- that is, people wanting very firmly to believe something, and fooling themselves.

How would you try ruling that one out ?

Vinnie

So you accept traditional authorship?

I have the believers mindset? Its the other way around. You are the one arrguing that there was widespread expectation of the specific belief that a messsiah who would die and raise three days later. You must have missed the NT Wright quote: “[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.”

They did go proof text hunting though but I don't think anyone expected a crucified messiah.

Unfortunately they were not looking on a Roman cross for a "savior". If anything, this was unexpected!

Modern readers might not fully understand the nature of what it meant for Paul and other Christians to speak of a crucified messiah in that first century world. N.T. Wright depicts the historical ignorance of the modern reader well, “Crucifixes regularly appear as jewellery in today’s post-Christian Western world, and the wearers are often blissfully unaware that their ornament depicts the ancient equivalent, all in one, of the hangman’s noose, the electric chair, the thumbscrew, and the rack. Or, to be more precise, something which combined all four but went far beyond them; crucifixion was such an utterly horrible thing that the very word was usually avoided in polite Roman society. Every time Paul spoke of it—especially when he spoke in the same breath of salvation, love, grace and freedom – he and his hearers must have been conscious of the slap in the face thereby administered to their normal expectations and sensibilities. Somehow, we need to remind ourselves of this every time Paul mentions Jesus’ death, especially the mode of that death.”[3]

I never said that. I said the case against fraud by Sanders is very persuasive.

Vinnie

I wouldn't. This is what the evidence says:

1) Belief in the Rez occured very early after the crucifixion of Jesus (anywhere from a few days to a few years) (on the basis of the ancien pre-Pauline formula.

2) Deliberate fraud is not a worthwhile consideration for reasons delineated above.

3) That Jesus' original followers had Rez experiences is a fact.

4). No one was probably looking on a roman Cross for a Messiah. In fact, the Cross was an an impediment to early Christianity. The claim that this man who died on the cross was the expected Messiah who was bringing about the defnitive divine rule was probably seen by many as nonsense.

Christians proclaim the scandalous notion that a man from Nazareth died for the sins of the world 2000 years ago on a Roman cross. The doctrine of the atonement teaches that sometime around 30 C.E. a peasant who probably couldn’t read or write, a rabble-rouser who was crucified next to two unnamed criminals is said to have atoned for the sins of the world. As Gerald O’ Collins S. J. stated, “The earthly history of Jesus ended with his being barbarously victimized on a cross, the place where God's saving revelation seems conspicuously absent. Left to ourselves, we would not go looking for the divine self-communication when Jesus died 'outside the gate' (Heb. 13:12).” [2] To many listeners in the first century the Christian proclamation of a crucified messiah proved strange and scandalously offensive. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:23, “We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

I think an actual resurrection explains those 4 pieces of data very well. I am sure some other theories can be offered by other people though. I am interested in seeing them. So you would posit "unconscious fraud"? That they had visions and thought Jesus rose?

I think at the very least, those 4 pieces of data need to be explained. Others may try to add in more (e.g empty tomb, women witnessing it in the Gospels) but I don't want to get into all that because then I'd have to discuss DM's original post in more detail. These 4 pieces of data seem to pretty much circumvent most of it but I am not saying bodily resurrection is infallibly gleaned from these 4 pieces of information.

Vinnie

Gurdur

Who says visions were needed ?

I've personally known people to blindly swear after the evnt that they saw something (that wasn't there); resurrections are also a theme often present among Indian sadhus; the exaggeration of the message could have easily lead disciples to imagine that in fact Jesus had risen again, and then to bolster this belief with all sorts of things.

After all, this kind of behaviour is hardly unknown, no ?

In essence, as far as I can see, your whole argument rests upon two premises:

1) that the idea of resurrection was unknown then and there

2) and that it hadn't been somehow mentioned already by Jesus, thus planting the idea for later wishful thinking.

Vinnie

Hi Copernicus. You said, "Family Man is right on the mark when he asks what it is about the resurrection story that is more believable than the multitude of other similar claims that most of us reject as implausible."

Can you give me an an example of another such claim? Can you also show how the claim is evidenced (e.g. I listed 4 pieces of data which an actual resurrection would explain though I am sure we could posit other theories)? Thanks.


The claim actually works against itself when you understand the nature of crucifixion in the first century. No one would have been looking for a messiah or savior on the Cross as best as I could tell. They might have (hopefully I am not falling victim to anachronism) regarded it as similar to what we tend to see ufo abductions, psycics and crazy cults as." We need to explain that in light of the data that we have though (my four reasons above).

I am sure most of you deny the possiblity of miracles and for that reason would seek to explain the data otherwise. So we approach the issue from different directions. But given that I deem the "Rez experiences" of the first Christians as a historical fact my options for explaining it are limited.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Yes, as I said it could be explained in other ways (the four points I brought up with no other ones added) but how well does it account for the data? These people were so convinced by their experiences that and spent their lives preaching Christ crucified and raised. Some were martyrs on account of this. Whatever happened, they actually believed Jesus rose. You are saying they had "imagined Jesus rose" and I would say that such a notion is logically possible. I'm not not convinced it fits the data better but for one inclinded to deny miracles I expect it would. We shoudl probably note that these Rez experiences occured over time as well. That might play a role in how well your theory fiits the data. I won't take the argument much further than this though because to do so I would have to add a few more pieces of data from the Gospels.

copernicus

Come on, Vinnie, are you serious? You've hung around atheists long enough to know of other claims of resurrections. You have heard of the Osirus-Dionysus theory, which was itself resurrected by Freke and Gandy in their popular books. If you are looking for data, take a look at their books, which are chock full of citations of "evidence" for their litany of similar claims by contemporaries of early christians. What makes your 4 pieces of "data" any more compelling?

But let's look at your data for what they are:

1) Belief in the Rez occured very early after the crucifixion of Jesus (anywhere from a few days to a few years) (on the basis of the ancien pre-Pauline formula.

This is not "data". All we have are records of professed belief, and professed belief is too varied and contradictory to be considered evidence of anything at all.

2) Deliberate fraud is not a worthwhile consideration for reasons delineated above.

Nonsense. Are you trying to say that no one of that era engaged in deliberate fraud? We know for a fact that some did. You have no way of verifying early scripture. You can choose to believe it or disbelieve, since there is very little corroborating evidence.

3) That Jesus' original followers had Rez experiences is a fact.
No it isn't. It is an assumption. Even if they did have real "Rez experiences", that proves nothing at all. Religious epiphanies are a dime a dozen in human history. And, by the way, why aren't you a Mormon? You have said nothing at all to make me disbelieve in the appearance of Mormoni to Joseph Smith.

4). No one was probably looking on a roman Cross for a Messiah. In fact, the Cross was an an impediment to early Christianity. The claim that this man who died on the cross was the expected Messiah who was bringing about the defnitive divine rule was probably seen by many as nonsense.
Actually, Freke and Gandy cited historical precursors to the the "cross" motif. It is a bit silly to argue that nobody was "probably" looking for a Messiah on a Roman cross at the very time that crucifixion was a popular method of punishment and people had their antennas up for a messiah. The earliest version of resurrected god-men seemed to prefer hanging on a tree, but the cross must have seemed a reasonable venue for the resurrection of a god-man during Roman times. It's not as if there were a shortage of would-be messiahs in the Roman-occupied holy lands.