Gary: Many Christian apologists point to the Early Creed in First Corinthians 15 as evidence for the resurrection. Their argument is: How can the resurrection be a legend if this Creed was circulating within three to five years of Jesus’ death, “as most scholars believe”?
What is the evidence that this “creed” was circulating within a few short years of Jesus’ death, and, is it true that most scholars believe it was?
Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar: I don’t see the logic of that, for two reasons. One is that rumors don’t take 3-5 years to start. They can start 30 minutes later. But also, on what grounds could anyone date the creed to the year 35 or so? Paul only says that he told it to the Corinthians after hearing it himself. He would have started the church in the late 40s, right? So why does that make the creed fifteen years earlier?
From a discussion on Erhman’s blog: here
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Gotcha!
It could just be a
forgery. Silly me … I mean interpolation, of course. 😉LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree.
But didn’t our friend, ft, tell us that Bart Ehrman and “most scholars” believe that the Early Creed was formed within 3-5 years of Jesus’ death?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, he would, wouldn’t he!
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Early Creed may have existed before Paul, but when?? In addition, how do we know that Paul didn’t add other alleged appearances onto this creed other than his own? Maybe the original creed only claimed that Jesus had appeared to Peter and the Twelve. Maybe Paul added James to the list and even the “five hundred”. We have zero evidence of an alleged appearance to James from any other source. Why didn’t the Gospel authors mention that Jesus had appeared to his own brother, the first bishop of the Jerusalem church?? And what about the “five hundred”? We have no other source telling us (unambiguously) that Jesus appeared to a group of five hundred people at one time and place.
Paul was an evangelist. Evangelists have one goal: to convert. What harm would it do to add a few embellished (fictitious) appearances onto this Early Creed if it saves a few extra souls and increases Paul’s following (and stature) in the Church??
Paul repeatedly denies being a liar in his epistles. In my experience, someone who feels the need to repeatedly deny being a liar…is probably a liar!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Exactly Gary. And according to many ancient Jewish sources, by indirect references of the time-period in question here, Saul/Paul of Tarsus was INDEED a heretic to many/most Jews of the time—evidenced by his lie about being from the tribe of Benjamin (a confirmed fabrication)—and banned from most/many Jewish Synagogues at the time. Hence, his constant (and naive) Gentile Greek audiences.
LikeLike
Doesn’t have to be an interpolation. There’s a more simple explanation.
And, it’s from this very same book.
It’s true that Paul explicitly said “received from the Lord” about the Eucharist in chapter 11, but maybe that’s at play here. His “Damascus road,” or maybe his 3 years in Arabia with further revelations, included this.
In that case, it’s not just the resurrection itself, which Paul could have heard the disciples were claiming when he was still persecutor Saul, but … the WHY of death as well as resurrection.
LikeLike
Or … it is simply made up.
Pity we can’t ask Marcion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now, Ehrman’s statement is interesting.
But, Habermas references Ehrman (below) in regards to the 1 Cor 15 creed:
“Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman both freely and often dates the earliest of these creeds to the 30s AD, sometimes within just 1-2 years after the crucifixion! Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins, 2012), see pages 22, 27, 92-93, 97, 109-113, 130-132, 141, 144-145, 155-158, 164, 170-173, 232, 249-251, 254, 260-263; cf. 289-291.”
I haven’t read “Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth”, but, I’m guessing (with good reason) that Habermas did.
But – that’s all just a guess. Maybe Habermas’ references (above) are all faulty. Maybe he made them up.
Nonetheless, I thought the general idea was to go by “majority consensus” of scholars.
Regardless of the date of the creeds composition, the points to be made from, or about the creed are indeed all arguable. Ehrman brings up some arguments. But then, guys like Ludemann, Crossan, Funk, and others bring up other arguments – especially in regards to dating the creed. (Of course, if Habermas’ references are correct, then even Ehrman argues for an early date of the creed).
But, even if Ehrman were arguing for an early date (1-2 years after the crucifixion), clearly that does not mean he thinks anything about the creed is necessarily anything but a “formalized rumor”.
And, I would fully expect you to argue something similar. And, that’s fine. Heck, you’ll argue about the meaning of “late” in Greek, and did so, at great length.
What I’ve argued has been that the 1 Cor 15 creed is one of two points in history – the crucifixion, followed by “the black box”, and then the creed, which apparently even Ehrman argues arose at an early date. And the question is “what happened in the black box that gave rise to the formulation and circulation of the creed”?
you argue bright lights. that’s what happened. or, a “jesus look-alike” (which nobody bothered to confirm was or was not Jesus). or, one guy, maybe a couple of guys, had hallucinations and everybody else believed them. All of them just fantastic and amazing propositions.
I just don’t buy into any of them, though.
so, blow off the creed, if you wish. Make an argument that there was nothing but “rumor” going around that Jesus had been resurrected. And, that’s what Paul was opposing. “Just rumor”. Of course, whether those telling the “rumors” considered them rumors is another issue altogether. To them, it might have been “fact”. But, I would suggest that the “rumor” must have included the assertion that Jesus was Messiah – else – I don’t see any reason for Paul to have gone off persecuting anyone.
LikeLike
What I’ve argued has been that the 1 Cor 15 creed is one of two points in history – the crucifixion, followed by “the black box”, and then the creed, which apparently even Ehrman argues arose at an early date.
Ehrman does not claim that the Creed arose at an early date, at least not by his statement above. I will ask him about Habermas’ quote. What is the source of Habermas’ statement about Ehrman? I want to include it when I ask Ehrman.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Obviously, Habermas knows what Ehrman thinks better than Ehrman does.
LikeLike
OK. Meanwhile, I feel 100% certain that I have a bookmarked video presentation that Ehrman once did, in which he clearly dates that creed to within “1-2 years” after the crucifixion. I think it was a presentation based on “Misquoting Jesus”, but it may have been based on “Historical Jesus”
I’ll see if I can find that link…
That presentation is the very reason I had for ever saying Ehrman had dated the creed that early.
But, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think it was just a “formalized rumor”, either.
LikeLike
But the big issue is: Does Ehrman believe that this creed, whatever it was based on, can be proven to have existed within a few years of Jesus’ death. We will see how Ehrman responds to Habermas’ statement.
Also, would you also provide sources for the other scholars whom you have stated hold Habermas’ position that the Creed originated within a few years of Jesus’ death? Can you give us a respected non-evangelical, non-fundamentalist Protestant source which states that most scholars agree with Habermas’ position on the dating of the Early Creed?
LikeLike
how about, let’s start with an easy source – wiki?
Geza Vermes defends the majority view in The Resurrection, stating that the words of Paul are “a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus”.[29] Gary R. Habermas argues, “Essentially all critical scholars today agree that in Corinthians 15:3–8, Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s) that summarizes the content of the Christian gospel,”[30] in which Paul “uses the explicit language of oral transmission,” according to Donald Hagner.[31] In other words, Paul’s account has been described by scholars as “the very early tradition that was common to all Christians”,[32] as “a sacred tradition”,[33] and contained in “the oldest strata of tradition”.[34]
Moreover, even skeptical scholars agree that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is not an interpolation but was a creed formulated and taught at a very early date after Jesus’ death. Gerd Lüdemann, a skeptic scholar, maintains that “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus… not later than three years…”[35] Michael Goulder, another skeptic scholar, states that it “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion”.[36]
From Crossan:
John Dominic Crossan (atheistic NT scholar): “Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. But he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that ‘I handed on to you as of first importance which I in turn received.’ The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he ‘went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days.’”
[ John Dominic Crossan, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), 254 ]
From Ludemann
Gerd Lüdemann (atheistic professor of NT at Göttingen): “The elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor. 15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.”[7] [ Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (Fortress Press, 1994), 171-72. ]
From Goulder
[1 Corinthians 15:3ff] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.” [ Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision” Resurrection Reconsidered. Oxford. 1996. 48.]
A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]
Heck – even the Oxford Companion to the Bible says this: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]
shrug… I dunno. Seems there’s some support for the “early dating” idea out there. My guess is that Raymond Brown would probably go for the early date, too. shrug
LikeLike
Interesting. Thank you for the information.
I find it odd that so many scholars hold this position but what is the evidence?? Answer: Paul’s statement in Galatians that he met with Peter and James shortly after his conversion. That’s it???
So once again, since you reject the Gospels, your belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is due to the testimony of ONE man who never tells us in his own letters what the hell he saw! Is that rational??
I think the above scholars are being very generous, but if the majority of scholars holds that the Creed originated very early after Jesus’ death, I will accept it. But note: As Ehrman points out, legends can develop quickly (“thirty minutes” according to Ehrman, tongue in cheek) so even if the Creed developed one year after Jesus’ death I don’t think we should take it any more seriously than the many reports of Virgin Mary sightings making their rounds today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
re: “So once again, since you reject the Gospels, your belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is due to the testimony of ONE man who never tells us in his own letters what the hell he saw! ”
I really don’t know where you get such an idea.
The story of Jesus being resurrected has been around for some 2000 years. There is no shortage of scholars – most assuredly, skeptics included – which claim the disciples, or most certainly, at least some of them, did indeed claim Jesus to have been resurrected, and did indeed claim Jesus to be Messiah.
The question has always been whether that story is true. And in the previous thread (whatever that was), I went through this exact same exercise with you.
There are those that claimed Jesus was resurrected, and those that said he was not. And, it’s always been that way.
But just look (for example) at Habermas’ “minimal facts” – the Corinthian Creed is not mentioned at all. (and no, I’m not making any other claims about Habermas’ facts, nor am I saying I agree or disagree with the approach). What I’m saying is that Habermas makes his case without using the Creed at all.,
And, my own personal approach has been quite similar. The Creed is just “one more bit of info”, and that’s all.
So, how in God’s name you can conclude that I’ve become convinced that Jesus was indeed bodily resurrected base on “the testimony of ONE man….” is far, far, FAR beyond me.
In short – I got no idea what the heck you’re talking about. And, clearly, neither do you.
LikeLike
And there it is! The sleight of hand, the sneaky shift of opinion. This is the guy who says in an earlier thread he doesn’t ‘do the gospels, nor Acts’. Neither, he tells us, does he set any store by Paul’s visions. The only ‘evidence’ for the resurrection that’s left, is this early creed, and here he is sidelining it: ‘the Creed is just “one more bit of info”, and that’s all.’
Why do you believe in the resurrection, ft, given you’re dismissive of most of the ‘evidence’ we have? You think the rumor (your word) has substance? How? Why? Does it come down to ‘people wouldn’t have believed such a thing if it hadn’t really happened’? If so, shouldn’t you also believe in UFO abductions, Muhammed on a flying horse and statues that bleed? The ‘evidence’ for these is just as good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil, FT is as disingenuous as they come, and it become more and more apparent with every post he comments on.
As you rightly point out, he hangs everything on the Creed, and yet, no Christian that I have ever interacted with has ever cited this as the reason they became Christian, let alone the sole reason while at the same time disregarding the Gospels and Acts.
It is because he has all his metaphorical eggs in one basket that he is fighting tooth and nail to hold on to some vestige of integrity – something one has to question if he ever had in the first place.
And the fact that a few scholars support the view that ”The Creed” could well be an interpolation should be of grave concern to one such as ft.
As Hendrix once sang …. ”And so castles made of sand, drift into the sea …. eventually.”
LikeLike
re: “The only ‘evidence’ for the resurrection that’s left, is this early creed, and here he is sidelining it: ‘the Creed is just “one more bit of info”, and that’s all.”
So, ummm…. you’re thinking that maybe the earliest disciples weren’t preaching that Jesus was Messiah? I think you’d find most historians agree that was the case, and that’s why things like the Corinth Creed circulated in the first place.
Of course, YOU might be a Mythicist. And, that’s fine. Most historians completely disregard that view. Most of them would agree that Jesus existed, that he was crucified in Jerusalem at the Passover by Pontius Pilate, at the insistence of the Jewish leadership. And most of them would agree that soon thereafter, there were those that claimed he had been resurrected and was Messiah.
LikeLike
Maybe Jesus survived the crucifixion, ft. There was a body sighting afterall! Jesus showed up (appeared) to the disciples in a body—his real body—and then got out of Dodge before the Romans found out he was still alive. He and Mary Magdalene moved to India; raised a passel of brats; and the rest is history!
Before leaving Dodge, Jesus told his disciples that he would soon return to establish the Kingdom. His disciples believed him. After all, they had abandoned everything for him. They were not going to let their hopes and dreams die that easily.
Mary knew better. She knew that Jesus was nuts—a nice guy—but completely delusional. But she was in love with him. She decided life in India might be good for his health—physical and mental. Mary had the means to make the big move.
LikeLiked by 1 person
maybe so. Convince me of it.
LikeLike
Here you go: https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/10/26/did-jesus-move-to-india-after-his-crucifixion/
LikeLike
A lot of people believe a lot of silly things. Just because a couple hundred superstitious first century peasants came to believe that a dead corpse had been “resurrected” doesn’t mean that YOU, ft, should believe it. That is the issue. Why do YOU believe this ancient tall tale?
The only evidence you have given is Paul’s testimony and the Early Creed. Scholars believe the Early Creed originated shortly after Jesus’ death based on an ASSUMPTION that Paul received this information from Peter and James on his trip to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians. They are accepting the word of one man who was repeatedly forced to deny that he was a liar!
Once again, your belief is based on the testimony of ONE first century man! Is that rational???
By the way, here is another plausible explanation for the resurrection belief—and in this one the disciples do indeed see Jesus’ body!:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/having-faith-in-jesus-is-like-having-faith-in-your-science-teacher/
LikeLike
It seems it continues to go back — again and again — to this … the disciples, or most certainly, at least some of them, did indeed claim Jesus to have been resurrected
Claim: Assert or affirm strongly, contend, profess, postulate, profess, purport. Notice … the word “prove” is not among the synonyms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
that’s exactly correct, Nan. What we have is a story. Two of them, actually. The first is that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and was resurrected. The second is like the first, minus the “was resurrected” part.
There is no “proof” one way or the other, at this point.
If someone digs up some kind of records that say (for example) that Pilate never crucified Jesus, but shipped him off for a lifetime sentence on a Roman galley, then all “resurrection” bets are off.
I really wish you “skeptic” folks could get the simplicity of the two stories in your heads. It’s not about whether the Gospels are “history texts” nor is it about whether the Corinth Creed does indeed date back to within a couple of years after the crucifixion.
It’s about the story – and more specifically, how the idea of Jesus as Messiah started getting spread around, which most historians agreed happened within a very short time after Jesus’ crucifixion. The question is “how does one start a story about a ‘dead Messiah'”, when regardless of the “Messianic” view one held. all views required the Messiah to be a living person.
So, the question is which of the two stories is correct? The “resurrection” version, or the “no resurrection” version? They’ve both been around for about the same length of time.
LikeLike
Actually, if push comes to shove, the traditional Jewish folk don’t accept Yeshua as the messiah. So all the NT stories are simply that — stories in an attempt to “prove” this itinerant preacher was the foretold messiah.
So whether it’s coming from Paul or Peter or John — or the MANY preachers of today — the reported death and resurrection of this Jewish fellow is simply a belief propagated by individuals who were impatient because the stories in the Hebrew Bible hadn’t come to pass.
LikeLiked by 2 people
re: “Actually, if push comes to shove, the traditional Jewish folk don’t accept Yeshua as the messiah.”
And that, of course, says precisely NOTHING about whether or not Jesus was resurrected.
re: “So whether it’s coming from Paul or Peter or John — or the MANY preachers of today — the reported death and resurrection of this Jewish fellow is simply a belief propagated by individuals who were impatient because the stories in the Hebrew Bible hadn’t come to pass.”
And, as I indicated earlier, there are two versions of the story. One says he was resurrected, the other says he was not.
All you’re saying is that you believe the second version to be true.
Now, do I agree that “the reported death and resurrection of this Jewish fellow is simply a belief propagated by individuals who were impatient because the stories in the Hebrew Bible hadn’t come to pass”?
No. I don’t. Now, if you want to provide some serious info to back up this “premise”, then, I’d be willing to read it. Otherwise, it’s of no value to me. As is, it’s just an opinion, and one that doesn’t appear to be founded on much of anything.
LikeLike
It’s “founded” on the fact that the traditional Jewish person does not believe the man called “Yeshua” was the Messiah.
Perhaps “impatience” wasn’t a bad word to use, but the individuals making this claim about <Yeshua were not basing their claims on what was taught in the Hebrew Bible. The traditional Jew (as taken from MyJewishLearning.com) believed there were specific things the messiah must accomplish in order to confirm his identity — among them restoring the kingdom of David to its former glory, achieving victory in battle against Israel’s enemies, rebuilding the temple (which the Romans destroyed in 70 CE) and ingathering the exiles to the land of Israel.
Further (from the same source), they envisioned a messianic age as a period of universal peace, in which war and hunger are eradicated, and humanity accepts God’s sovereignty. Has this happened? Answer: No.
The Christian religion has effectively “postponed” the predictions related to the Jewish messiah and focused instead on a “creed” presented by Paul (and supposedly developed by a few other Jewish folk) that Yeshua was the long-awaited messiah. And the long-awaited messianic age? Well, it’s still “pending.”
If those who truly believe that “Yeshua” was the Jewish Messiah would go beyond what they’re told from the pulpit and truly study the “source” of the story, they just might change their thinking. (I’m not holding my breath.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
what the Jews NOW claim about the Messiah is quite different than what they claimed in the first century.
NOT according to the simplistic view of “my jewish learning”, but according to the venerated and highly-researched Jewish Encyclopedia: (below)
For the better understanding of the Messianic pictures in apocalyptic literature it is important to point out that, although frequently interlaced, two distinct sets of ideas may be traced—the one set concerned with this world, hence realistic and national; the other directed to the world to come, hence transcendent and universalistic. The Messiah presents a correspondingly double character. Side by side with the traditional idea of an earthly king of the house of David is the new conception of a heavenly preexistent Messiah, from which it follows that in regard to the question of the Messiah the older apocalyptic literature, as well as the younger rabbinical branch, falls naturally into two groups.
The oldest apocalypse in which the conception of a preexistent heavenly Messiah is met with is the Messiological section of the Book of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) of the first century B.C. The Messiah is called “the Son of Man,” and is described as an angelic being, his countenance resembling a man’s, and as occupying a seat in heaven beside the Ancient of Days (xlvi. 1), or, as it is expressed in ch. xxxix. 7, “under the wings of the Lord of spirits.” In ch. xlviii. 3, 6, xlix. 2b it is stated that “His name was called before the Lord of spirits before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, and before the stars of heaven weremade”; that “He was chosen and hidden with God before the world was created, and will remain in His presence forevermore” (comp. also lxii. 6); and that “His glory will last from eternity unto eternity and his might from generation unto generation” (that “his name” in xlviii. 3 means really “son of man” is evident from verse 6; comp. the similar use of “Shem Yhwh” for “Yhwh” in Isa. xxx. 27). He is represented as the embodiment of justice and wisdom and as the medium of all God’s revelations to men (xlvi. 3; xlix. 1, 2a, 3). At the end of time the Lord will reveal him to the world and will place him on the throne of His glory in order that he may judge all creatures in accordance with the end to which God had chosen him from the beginning. When he rises for the judgment all the world will fall down before him, and adore and extol him, and give praise to the Lord of spirits
MY COMMENTS: The “Heavenly Messiah” idea was shunned by the Jews after (and almost assuredly) because of “the Jesus thing”. The idea of “Messiah” that was clearly being used, in reference to Jesus, was that of the Book of Enoch.
Heck, Jesus even alludes to the Book of Enoch, calling it “scripture”, when he says that when people are resurrected, they with neither “marry nor be given in marriage” and will “be like the angels” — and the only text in which the marriage of angels is spoken of is the Book of Enoch.
So, while I appreciate the “current” view of Messiah, it was most certainly NOT the “established view” in the time of Jesus.
LikeLike
Perhaps you’re unaware that the “simplistic view” is still held by the Traditional Jew (i.e., Judaism). Unfortunately, just like Christianity, Jewish beliefs have been analyzed, dissected, and reinterpreted to the point they now include a myriad of viewpoints related to what the Hebrew scriptures really meant.
Also, I find it interesting that when the “argument” calls for it, the Book of Enoch is considered valuable. The rest of the time it’s just one of those apocalyptic books that was discarded by the Nicene Council of 325 A.D — and of course, what they considered “gospel” is what today’s Christians based their theology on.
Suggest you read Wikipedia’s page on Judaism, where one of the lead statements is: … the traditional Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present. (If I remember correctly, you tend to discount Wikipedia, but nonetheless, they are a valuable — and often accurate — resource on many topics.)
LikeLike
and I suggest you stick to more accepted scholastic information, such as is found in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is, after all, documentation that the Jews themselves have researched and compiled.
OH, and it may well be that the “traditional view” is as wiki says it to be. But, “traditional” since when?
And regarding the book of Enoch – I’m using it for HISTORICAL purposes. I’m sure you’re not interested in my views on theology, and I’m positive I’m not terribly interested in yours.
If you want to look up the myriad of views regarding the Messiah, plus references and citations, going back through the ages, I suggest strongly you use the Jewish Encyclopedia.
I’m afraid I have to hold it in much higher regard than “my jewish learning” or wiki.
LikeLike
I HAVE looked at the Jewish Encyclopedia and I do agree … it is an excellent source of information related to the history of the Jewish belief system.
What I do notice, however, that it doesn’t make any “claims” as related to the Messiah — or any other religious topic. Instead, it provides dates, statistics, history, and expands on the various scriptures found within the Hebrew Bible, as well as other sources. Basically, it explains the Jewish religion.
I think the reason we’re unable to come to terms on this particular issue is because we see it from different sides of the coin. Not so much that you’re a believer and I’m not … but rather that you see it from the perspective of the Christian faith, whereas I’m more convinced by the Jewish position since the entire “story” starts with them.
But beyond that — I participate in these discussions because it’s a subject I find interesting. I did considerable research for my book related to both the existing Christian belief system as well as its history, so it’s not like I’m a neophyte. Beyond that, since I was part of the Christian faith for over 15 years, I do have a “first-hand” perspective. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
We don’t know what happened to Amelia Earhart, but we can guess at the most probably scenario for her disappearance without one shred of evidence: Her plane crashed!
And the same is true with the “resurrected Jesus belief”. We do not need one shred of evidence to guess/surmise the cause of Jesus’ empty tomb: someone moved the body! The supernatural stories that arose after that historical event can be easily chalked up to the ingenuity of the human imagination!
Brain dead corpses never, ever, ever, ever come back from the dead. Period.
LikeLike
@ fty
Of course, tradition tells us that the vast majority of biblical scholars have been /are Christians.
It is seldom mentioned that this story was rejected by some almost as soon as it ”hit the headlines”.
It has traditionally been taken on faith that the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine historical figure and was crucified, as this seems to be the simplest solution as to why there were followers/ is a Christian religion.
Something must have happened, surely? Thus, just by using Occam’s Razor this particular crucifixion is deemed to be an historical event, and how easy has it been to tag on to the story all the other ”wondrous things”.divine characters are notorious for?
And yet, integrity and honest scholarship demands that we acknowledge there is not a scrap of contemporary evidence for this event or anything associated with it. Not a thing!
Furthermore, outside of the bible the majority of the characters do not feature anywhere on the historical time line.
As forensic scholarship has advanced year by year no evidence confirming this outrageous supernatural tale has ever been forthcoming.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There were ancient stories that Jesus survived the crucifixion and escaped to India. So it isn’t the dichotomy you are asserting: Either people saw a literal, resurrected body or they had hallucinations and visions. Maybe all the witnesses in the Early Creed did see Jesus after his crucifixion…but he wasn’t resurrected…he was recovered! He and Mary Magdalene then moved to India and…
LikeLike
and once again, all you’re saying is that given the two “story version” – Jesus was resurrected, or Jesus was not resurrectted – you opt for the second version.
That’s fine.
If you could, perhaps, convince me that Jesus recovered. then great. I’d be convinced, and, there’d be no reason for me to fool with my current status of being convinced he was resurrected.
LikeLike
Because in the minds of most educated people, recoveries are much more probable than resurrections…except in the case of ONE first century man—if you are Christian.
Not rational!
LikeLike
Why are Ehrmans thoughts “the big issue”? Who gives a rats patoot what one guy thinks?
LikeLike
Because you were making a big deal about “even Ehrman believes the Creed was early”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OH!!! Well, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. Even if my own memory of what Ehrman said in his video presentation is wrong, and even if Habermas’ references are all wrong, there are plenty of other scholars (some of which I’ve already quoted) that give the creed an early date.
LikeLike
I found the source of Habermas’ statement: “The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ Among the Major World Religions”, Gary Habermas, PhD, copyright, 2016, page 29-30:
Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman both freely and often dates the earliest of these creeds to the 30s AD, sometimes within just 1-2 years after the crucifixion! [fn. 49]
Habermas gives a footnote link for this statement:
49. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins,
2012), see pages 22, 27, 92-93, 97, 109-113, 130-132, 141, 144-145, 155-158, 164, 170-173, 232, 249-251, 254,
260-263; cf. 289-291.
Link to Habermas’ article: http://www.garyhabermas.com/Evidence2/Habermas-Uniqueness-of-Jesus-Christ-2016.pdf
LikeLiked by 3 people
“ I found the source of Habermas’ statement: … ”
So, does he give a reference to his source for this? Or, is it like most everything I’ve ever read from Habermas and just a claim without support?
LikeLike
Did you edit this after I read it? Or did I just miss the entire 3rd paragraph when I read it?
Maybe I need a nap. Please disregard my call for a reference from Habermas.
LikeLike
Sorry. I edited it (twice). I also gave the link to Habermas’ article in which he makes this statement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now I have to pick up Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? just to see how he manages to mention this creed on 37 pages.
LikeLike
I copied and pasted Habermas’ comment and the pages he sites from Ehrman’s book and sent them to Ehrman. We will see what Ehrman says!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is Ehrman’s reply to the statement by Habermas you have quoted:
“Hmm… I didn’t know that. How weird. Maybe you should write him and ask where I say that?”
LikeLike
The general consensus by both Christian and non-Christian scholars/historians is that 1 Corinthians was written by Saul of Tarsus between 53 – 57 CE while staying in Ephesus—he sent Timothy to Corinth. Exact dating has always been impossible for many reasons, but it could not have been any earlier than 53 CE. This most all biblical historians agree upon.
The exact year of the Greek Jesus Christ’s execution/death is impossible. But by several methods it can be deciphered to a range of 26 – 37 CE by most biblical historians. However, the least understood method of dating Jesus’ execution is by Jewish rabbinical sources and Jewish methods. After all, Yeshua bar Yosef was CLEARLY Jewish, specifically Sectarian Jewish. They date his death between 26 – 36 CE. No earlier, no later. Personally, I trust Jewish methods much more than later Greek Hellenistic methods or modern Greco-Christian methods.
As I’ve stated here numerous times Gary, outside of the decades-later, biased, Gentile, Greek-born, early Church Fathers who did not speak fluent Hebrew or Arabic nor perfectly understand its structure, of at least 41 contemporaneous historians and authors of Jesus’ lifetime AND 100-years after his death, no one in that part of the Roman Empire recorded anything at all about Yeshua bar Yosef specifically (vs Christians in general) EXCEPT Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius. And their mentions are irrelevant regarding an oral “Creed” by a heretical Jew named Saul/Paul.
Furthermore and as Bart Ehrman correctly points out in his blog discussion, according to the very earliest extant, complete Gospel, women and only women there at (Jesus’?) the tomb, found it merely empty. That’s it. End of story. Those women did nothing more. The Gospel of Mark ends right there. No mythical, fantasy stories about any resurrection or ghostly body floating around everywhere. Those wild stories began in Greek (not Jewish) circles between 80 – 110 CE and were further convoluted by the heretical Jew Saul/Paul.
LikeLike
The original Gospel of Mark alludes to future appearances of the risen Jesus to his male disciples in Galilee, but what constitutes an “appearance” in the mind of the anonymous author of Mark is pure speculation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes Gary, strictly within Markian authorship and style, which is clearly and unequivocally Greek, there are eschatologically endowed supernatural powers of Hellenistic culture’s history of divine men—e.g. Plato, pharaohs or god-kings of Egypt, and Hercules—given to great men. The “Son of David” in Mark is very Hellenistic and intentionally written to remove the Jewish Messiah away from the victorious military hero to one of suffering, death, and rebirth to accommodate a Greek Apotheotic hero. And no one then in the 1st-century CE could standardize the differences between Jewish resurrection of the dead* (Yeshua was Jewish) and later 3rd-century CE Greek-Christian apotheosis/resurrection. Many still can’t today.
And yes, what constitutes an “appearance” is just as diverse and varying a definition today as it was 2,000+ years ago. 😄
Source: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/
LikeLike
re: “The “Son of David” in Mark is very Hellenistic and intentionally written to remove the Jewish Messiah away from the victorious military hero to one of suffering, death, and rebirth to accommodate a Greek Apotheotic hero.”
The term “son of David”, as a reference to the Messiah, originated in the Psalms of Solomon, written in the 1st century BC.
LikeLike
Since Mark was originally written in Greek for a pagan/Gentile audience—Jews speaking Aramaic and Hebrew did not need their own customs explained to them—and Greco-Roman pagans vaguely understood what the Jewish Messiah(s) were believed to be, Kings over a restored Jewish Kingdom (rebels, dissenters, traitors) inside the Roman Empire, Gentiles would have needed to understand WHY THEN did this “King” suffer, be humiliated, fail, and was executed if he was to be “the Savior King?” The earliest followers of Yeshua’s The Way movement (later termed Christians in Greek by Greek writers) believed he would inaugurate God’s Kingdom on Earth. With his death and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), Mark’s Gentile/pagan audience had to be convinced that these last minute catastrophic events were suddenly part of the NEW plan, the NEW twist of actual defeat/failure into a revised abstract, spiritual future hope of non-death!
So again, by 70 and 74 CE when all of Syro-Palestinian (homeland) Judaism’s restoration is crushed and practically extinct, Greek sympathizers change the narrative, or as I stated “Mark is very Hellenistic and intentionally written to remove the [failed] Jewish Messiah away from that victorious military hero to one of suffering, death, and rebirth to accommodate a Greek Apotheotic hero” and future hope.
The fact that Messiah originates in Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanakh, is redundant, stating the obvious, and pointless. Of course Messianism originated strictly with the Hebrew/Jews and many of their ancient Scriptures. It certainly did NOT with the later 3rd- and 4th-century Greek-Gospel writers! Hahahahaha! 😆 Geezzz. 🙄
LikeLike
I really appreciate all your theories (which you seem to have a habit of posting as “fact”) but, what can I say? If you didn’t even know the Messianic concept in Enoch – a book even Jesus alludes to – then, I got really REALLY serious doubts on the rest of your theories.
Nice writing. I’m just afraid most of it is total BS.
LikeLike
The fact that you stated “The term “son of David”, as a reference to the Messiah, originated in the Psalms of Solomon…” in light of Hellenism vs Second Temple (homeland, Aramaic) Jewish Messianism, suggests you do not have a clear or good (perhaps amputated or horribly narrow, biased) understanding of the two bipolarized cultures and literature of those centuries. Many of your past comments-contentions here consistently reflect this.
For any of Gary’s readers who pay scant, indifferent attention to ftbond’s comments here, especially those regarding Second Temple Judaism/Messianism, he has always failed to grasp the full contextual history and schism between Greek culture and Hebrew-Aramaic culture. He does not even know when it first became unstable and volatile or why. Furthermore, he has repeatedly mixed, blurred, and convoluted the stark distinctions in order to validate his own Greco-Roman Christology or stories of his 4th-century CE Greek Christ. Jewish homeland Messianism could not be further apart and more night and day from all his late Greek-written by Greek-born Gentile cultists (who couldn’t speak fluent Hebrew, much less Aramaic) and Church Fathers than they CLEARLY were from 516 BCE to 70 CE and into the late 2nd-century and early 3rd-century CE. That polarization compares to today’s hardcore Republicans vs hardcore Liberals, and unlike those Repubs and Dems, those Jews and Greeks in 1st-century Palestine would voluntarily DIE for their convictions or nationality! This mysterious ftbond is clueless of these extreme cultural dynamics.
So please move on to other commentors ft. I am NO LONGER interested in your wasteful, ill-informed merry-go-round antics. How many times must I repeat that to you!? Can you not comprehend that after several months of telling you that?
LikeLike
re: “…regarding Second Temple Judaism/Messianism, he has always failed to grasp the full contextual history and schism between Greek culture and Hebrew-Aramaic culture. He does not even know when it first became unstable and volatile or why”
First, Dwain, you got NO IDEA of what I do or don’t know about the “schism between Greek culture and Hebrew-Aramaic culture”
But, it’s not really important what I know.
For the sake of the multitudes of readers, why don’t you explain – WITH REFERENCES – exactly what that schism was, and how it affected Jewish thought regarding the Messiah.
I’m really REALLY wanting to see this.
But, don’t just blurt out a bunch of stuff you’ve cut-and-pasted. You’re gonna say you know stuff as “fact”, so, lemme see that historic “fact” (as YOU see it), backed up by some real, actual scholars.
I really think all the readers here on Gary’s blog deserve this, because God knows, you’ve blathered on constantly about it, but have never ever provided textual or scholastic references to back up what you’re saying. Even in your article on your own blog, there were no citations at all.
So, go ahead, get your whole case out there.
And then, once you’ve done that, explain to me what the heck that has to do with the fact that the Psalms of Solomon is where the Messiah is referred to as the “Son of David”.
Because, whether it was written by a Hellenist or a Hebraic Jew, guess what: It doesn’t change the fact that in written records, it’s the earliest reference to the Messiah as the “Son of David”.
LikeLike
😴 Here we go again you thick-headed Neanderthal. I repeat…
All your past and current comments-replies to me merely demonstrate you are nothing more than a poorly educated Evangelical Agitator/Antagonist. Nothing more. You have not and do not show the ability to engage equitably in productive, civil discourse or debate. For the 100th plus time, MOVE ALONG, engage others, ignore my comments like you promised you would do months ago. This will be my cookie-cutter template reply to you from here on out. Try to comprehend this. Read it 5-10 times if you have to if you can read English. This will be all you illicit every single time. Done with you.
LikeLike
I continue to “LOL” at your arrogance. It is truly laughable.
LikeLike
😴 And here we go again ignoring your own promise and my constant reminders. I repeat…
All your past and current comments-replies to me merely demonstrate you are nothing more than a poorly educated Evangelical Agitator/Antagonist. Nothing more. You have not and do not show the ability to engage equitably in productive, civil discourse or debate. For the 100th plus time, MOVE ALONG, engage others, ignore my comments like you promised you would do months ago. This will be my cookie-cutter template reply to you from here on out. Try to comprehend this. Read it 5-10 times if you have to if you can read English. This will be all you illicit every single time. Done with you.
LikeLike
re: “Jewish homeland Messianism could not be further apart and more night and day from all his late Greek-written by Greek-born Gentile cultists (who couldn’t speak fluent Hebrew, much less Aramaic) and Church Fathers than they CLEARLY were from 516 BCE to 70 CE and into the late 2nd-century and early 3rd-century CE”
First, it’s not MY “late Greek-written by Greek-born Gentile cultists… blablabla”.
Second, you didn’t even KNOW that the Messiah, as Jesus followers understood it, was the Heavenly Messiah” of Enoch. In fact, you didn’t even know such a version of the Messiah existed, NOR did you know that this view of the Messiah was shunned AFTER Christianity began to take hold, and largely *because it had begun to take hold.
So, the “Heavenly Messiah” of Enoch – the understanding of the Messiah that Jesus’ followers held to – was fully a part of first century Judaism. AND YOU DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THAT. So how on earth could you possibly know for fact where the Messianic view of anyone came from in the first century?
You can sit there and blather on about what you THINK I believe – (because, after all, you “know it all”, right?) – but that just shows your arrogance.
And, I, of course, “LOL” at your arrogance.
LikeLike
😴 And here we go again ignoring your own promise and my constant reminders. I repeat…
All your past and current comments-replies to me merely demonstrate you are nothing more than a poorly educated Evangelical Agitator/Antagonist. Nothing more. You have not and do not show the ability to engage equitably in productive, civil discourse or debate. For the 100th plus time, MOVE ALONG, engage others, ignore my comments like you promised you would do months ago. This will be my cookie-cutter template reply to you from here on out. Try to comprehend this. Read it 5-10 times if you have to if you can read English. This will be all you illicit every single time. Done with you.
LikeLike
And as you, myself, and many of your readers here know, the Gospels are unreliable at best and complete fictional mythology at worst for accurate, highly plausible history/reality. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ … And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. …
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris ”
This statement can be reliably dated to the within a few years of the finding, translating and publishing of the Book of Mormon. So, it is a very early testimony from some of the founding fathers of Mormonism.
That doesn’t make it true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bingo!
LikeLike
Okay, so let’s take a look at The Creed®:
3 that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
We don’t have a single testimony from a single witness of Jesus’ death. Just stories written at least a generation later by ‘Mark’ who may have heard the story from someone. Then stories written even later by people who mostly copied Mark.
But the interesting bit is at the end: ‘according to the scriptures.’ Not ‘according to the witnesses.’ Not ‘according to the apostles.’
‘According to the scriptures.’ We know Jesus died because some Old Testament prophecies have been interpreted to predict it.
For the Creed, the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection is based in prophecy, not history.
4 that he was buried,
Again, not a single witness to the burial. Just stories.
that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Again, not a single witness to the resurrection. Just stories about a missing body.
5 and that he appeared to Cephas,
We don’t have Cephas’ testimony about this. Just a claim by others.
[b] and then to the Twelve.
We don’t have a single testimony from a single member of the twelve about this. Just a claim by others.
We do have church traditions about the deaths of the twelve. But these traditions arise hundreds of years later and are dubious at best. If I remember correctly John died in three separate cities in three different ways. And according to the fundamentalist church of my youth, John never died and is still alive awaiting The Second Coming™.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time,
We don’t have a single testimony from a single one of these five hundred about this. Just a claim by others.
most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
The implication is that we could check with them if we want. But this claim is being made in some unknown city in the Roman Empire. And the witnesses, supposedly are in Palestine. How would people check up on the claim? Skype wasn’t a thing. Literacy wasn’t much of a thing, so writing a letter wasn’t practical. Would some truth seeker take months of work to make the journey, track down the witnesses, interview them, and head back home? Not bloody likely.
7 Then he appeared to James,
We don’t have James’ testimony about this. Just a claim by others.
then to all the apostles,
Interestingly, this assumes ‘the apostles’ are a separate group from ‘the twelve.’ But, like the twelve, we don’t have a single testimony from a single member of this group, except:
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Paul. The same guy that gives us The Creed® is the only one on the entire list that gives us his testimony of The Risen Lord™. And he only says he’s had a revelation of some kind. For details, we have to go to Acts where we get three very different accounts of Paul’s experience.
Conclusion
Even if you take The Creed® as authentic, all it tells us is that someone believed that a list of people saw a risen Jesus. It doesn’t tell us whether those listed thought they’d experienced a risen Jesus.
In the end, like the gospels, The Creed® is hearsay at best. Hearsay or complete fiction, it is religious propaganda and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Well said, kos!
LikeLike
you keep leaving stuff out…
the creed doesn’t say Jesus died “according to scriptures”. It says he “died for our sins according to scripture.
same problem with “raise”. It doesn’t say he was “raised” according to scriptures, but that he was “raised on the third day according to scriptures”.
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of your post. You seem to be far too willing to overlook what is being said in black-and-white.
LikeLike
One day to God is like a thousand years…
Methuselah was 900 and something years old.
Five thousand people are fed with five loaves of bread and three fish.
Thousands greet Jesus on his entry into Jerusalem.
Thousands convert on Pentecost.
Blah, blah, blah…
I don’t believe these numbers. I think that the authors of the above Bible stories were playing fast and loose with their numbers. So I wouldn’t bet my house on the historicity of “on the third day” in this creed.
LikeLike
you have absolutely, utterly, completely, yea even astoundingly missed the whole point.
Ithe POINT is that “for our sins” and “in three days” are what “according to the scriptures” is referring to – NOT that “Jesus died” (by itself) nor “raised up” (by itself).
LikeLike
Great. So you admit that the creed is a theological statement and not an historical statement.
Yet you use this theological document along with Paul’s one statement “have I not seen the Christ” to believe in a first century dead body resurrection. Is that rational??
BTW: You are very, very quiet on my assertion that it is possible Jesus survived the crucifixion. Cat got your tongue? 🙂
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/10/26/did-jesus-move-to-india-after-his-crucifixion/
LikeLike
the creed is both historical and theological, exactly as the resurrection is. Jesus did die – which is historical – and the fact that he did so “for our sins” (and not just as something to do on a Sabbath eve) – is theological. Jesus was raised – which, IF it happened (as I’m convinced that it did), then that is historical. That he was raised on the third day is theological.
I don’t really know where your “all or nothing” wooden, legalistic, word-twisting mindset comes from, but, I think you need some professional help.
As far as your “Jesus in India” business goes, well, I started to read it – haven’t finished yet – and I don’t see a thing there that I haven’t seen elsewhere before.
LikeLike
If anyone needs “help”, my friend, it is you for being so gullible as to believe the tall tales of one first century nut job (Paul of Tarsus).
LikeLike
oh, well, what about all the other nut jobs that historians agree were saying Jesus was resurrected?
OR, are you thinking that Paul really wasn’t persecuting those that said so? Is that made up?
Hmmm… now you’re a “Paul mythicist”???
LikeLike
So you STILL do not believe that there is a plausible natural explanation for early Christians coming to the belief that Jesus had been resurrected??? I just gave you one in the latest post!!!
Jesus survived the crucifixion, ft. He later “appeared” to his disciples and family in a body (his original, human body) and then high-tailed it out of Dodge to India, Persia, or somewhere else beyond the reach of the Romans! You don’t want to address that possibility because you know it rips your argument to shreds.
LikeLike
Gary.
re: “You don’t want to address that possibility because you know it rips your argument to shreds.”
The old “Jesus didn’t die, but moved to India” theory has been around since at least the 1700’s.
It, and all other “alternate” theories, most assuredly rips my argument to shreds – IF any one of them are TRUE.
LikeLike
Exactly. And how do you know that one of these alternative (natural) theories is not true? You don’t.
The above explanation in this post may be improbable but it is not impossible, and to most educated (non-Christian) people it is a much more plausible explanation for the Resurrection belief than the Christian supernatural explanation. But you continue to hang onto the supernatural explanation. Why?
LikeLike
the “Jesus didn’t die, and ended up retiring in Madagascar” theory explains the “missing body”, and in my humble opinion, does a worse job of it than just saying “the body was stolen”. Surviving a crucifixion, in itself, seem almost infinitely more improbably than the body either being stolen or moved.
But, all of those “whatever-happened-to-the-body” theories leave us with bright lights or wishful thinking to account for (quite literally) inventing the “resurrected Messiah” story.
But, it also leaves those bright lights and wishful thinking in the hands of a handful of Galilean fishermen – and I don’t know of any credible historian that thinks the (apparent) “leader” (as it were) – Peter – or for that matter, any of the Galilean peasantry that constituted the majority of Jesus’ following – were anything but illiterate.
As such, all those guys like Peter, John & his brother James, and James (the brother of Jesus) had to offer was what they said, if they were of the illiterate masses of Galilean peasantry. It’s not as if they’d have either great scriptural nor philosophical diatribes with which to convince anyone. And, basically, whatever they said to others, regarding the alleged “resurrection of Jesus”, was far, far, FAR more likely to have it’s origins in something experienced.
If all they had, then, was their own accounts of something “experienced”, then it would have been just plain easy for just about any educated Pharisee to explain why Jesus’ alleged resurrection didn’t make any sense at all. And a few kindly and well-meaning and sympathetic Pharisees might also suggest “….therefore, Peter and John – God love you – but you’ve just been seeing things – like lots of deeply grieving people do”.
I think it’s very, very likely that such conversations came up. I cannot possibly imagine that there is a single “Elvis sighter” out there that hasn’t gotten some “pushback” from someone. And, in fact, it’s super easy to find (often unkind) pushback on Elvis sighters all over the internet these days. (and, no, Gary, I didn’t say, or even suggest, that they had the internet back in the day of Jesus). But, I personally fail to see how any individuals that are in contact with others – outside of asylums for the insane – could tell a story of how they saw a dead man that had come back to life and walked out of his grave, and not get some pushback from somebody who wanted to help the poor story-teller regain his sanity.
Yet, despite the pushback – which eventually came in the form of “persecution” – the story that Jesus was resurrected, and is Messiah continued to be told. And, again, that “story” being told was one based on some experience, not on “book learning”. So, dang, it had to have been one whopper of an hallucination, or one really incredible set of bright lights, such that – despite pushback from other individuals as well as from educated religious leaders, perhaps sometimes done in kind hopes of helping these deluded individuals regain sanity – evidently guys like Peter, John and James continued to tell the story. After all, by the time Paul started his writing career, there were already churches established throughout Judea, in the Syrian area, and in contiguous Asian areas. Somebody was still telling that story of a “resurrected Jesus who is Messiah”, obviously. It is clear that that is the story that Paul was telling, and I just don’t think there’s any reason to believe that his story was materially different than what was being told by Peter, John and James.
Thus, I think it is far more likely that the very earliest “believers” (in the resurrected Jesus) were one of two things: either they were genuinely insane (and therefore, incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality) – psychotic – like, on the level of serious schizophrenia — or — they were sane men that were simply telling of something extraordinary and incomprehensible which they had actually seen.
OH – another option: they saw a “Jesus look-alike”. Maybe it was a professional “Jesus impressionist”, just back from a gig in Vegas. And, that guy was good. Peter flat-out couldn’t tell the difference, and he couldn’t get backstage at the performance to chat with the performer. Whatever details the “look-alike theorist” suggests, I personally think the whole approach is about as lame as the “Jesus recovered and went to Patagonia” theory.
So WHY DO I believe the “supernatural option”?
The “natural” options require so many different phenomenon to have occurred, on top of so much “happenstance” and “coincidence”, in addition to so much “exceptionalism”, that the solutions are just about as “miraculous” as a resurrection.
Given that the very best we can do is offer speculations on how this universe even got here, I don’t find it unreasonable to say “God did it” (Creation, that is) Thus, I don’t find it totally unreasonable to posit that God did just One More Miracle. If He began a Creation that would end up “bringing forth life” (which is another thing science can’t explain) over a great deal of time, then I think it’s equally reasonable to believe that He could begin (essentially) a “new Creation” which likewise will unfold over a great deal of time.
(OH, and if you’re wondering, let me just go ahead and say: Yes, I think it’s entirely possible that there have really been only two bonafide miracles: Creation and the Resurrection. I’m not entirely convinced that this is true, but, neither am I convinced that any or all of the miracles attributed to Jesus, or, found in the OT, actually occurred).
LikeLike
And, again, that “story” being told was one based on some experience, not on “book learning”.
Yes, it was an experience: An experience of seeing a man alive again that they all were certain was dead (and so did he). God had raised him from the dead.
The risen-from-the-dead Jesus showed up (appeared) at Peter’s front door; then to the Twelve, then to James, and then to hundreds in Galilee three months after his public crucifixion. God had raised him from the dead proving that he truly was the Messiah. He then left them, but promised to return to create the New Kingdom. His failure to return triggered speculation resulting in the belief that God had taken Jesus to heaven, but he would soon return to establish the kingdom.
Over the ensuing years, legends were added to the story, eventually resulting in the Gospels. Period.
If you can’t see that as possible, then it proves that your belief is not based on probability and evidence but on feelings and perceptions: your intuition that the universe requires a Creator and that the Christian explanation for that Creator makes the most sense to fill that “gap” in human knowledge.
LikeLike
re: “…. it proves that your belief is not based on probability and evidence but on feelings and perceptions: your intuition that the universe requires a Creator and that the Christian explanation for that Creator makes the most sense to fill that “gap” in human knowledge.”
And, no more than your own belief to the opposite, Gary. You have ZERO evidence of how the universe got here, or that it didn’t require a Creator. You, like science, are just “filling in gaps” by throwing out theories ad-infinitum – theories for which there will never be anything resembling “proof”, because we can’t get outside the universe to observe what is there, nor can we observe anything except by our own senses, nor can we go back before the Big Bang to see what happened there, or what the conditions were.
But, I’m fine to consider that it’s possible that Jesus wasn’t resurrected. And, if someone came up with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, then as I’ve said many times before, I’ll drop Christianity like a hot potato.
LikeLike
But, I’m fine to consider that it’s possible that Cinderella did not go to the ball in a pumpkin carriage drawn by mice. And, if someone came up with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, then as I’ve said many times before, I’ll drop my belief in the reality of fairy godmothers like a hot potato.
Dear ft, we no more need to prove to you that dead people cannot be resurrected as we need to prove to you that pumpkins cannot be turned into princess carriages. The onus is on you to provide good evidence that such fantastical events do occur.
Christianity has had two thousand years to come up with good evidence and all they have ever been able to produce is disputed eyewitness testimony. The resurrection story is a ghost tale. Period.
LikeLike
I don’t recall ever asking you to prove dead people can’t be resurrected.
But, thanks!
LikeLike
Then why are you here?? You say that your belief in Jesus’ resurrection is based on evidence but when we point out that your belief is based on ONE man’s testimony and claims, you tell us that you are willing to change your mind if “evidence is presented to the contrary”. That is the passive voice. You are passively asking US to provide you with evidence that proves an alternative explanation for the origin of this ancient tale.
That isn’t how it works. The onus is on Christians to provide good evidence for this tale not on skeptics to provide evidence for an alternative explanation.
Your belief is based on Paul’s vague statement that he “saw the Christ” and on the assumption that Paul received the early creed from Peter and James three years after Jesus’ death based on Paul’s claim that he met with these two guys three years after Jesus’ death. So once again, your belief in a first century dead person resurrection is based on the word of ONE man who lived 2,000 years ago.
Is
that
rational?
LikeLiked by 1 person
re: “Your belief is based on Paul’s vague statement that he “saw the Christ” and on the assumption that Paul received the early creed from Peter and James three years after Jesus’ death based on Paul’s claim that he met with these two guys three years after Jesus’ death. ”
Wrong. But, I’ve responded to this nonsense a couple of times already so I’m not gonna bother to discuss it here again.
LikeLike
You believe that the early creed indicates that within three years of Jesus’ death his followers were claiming that he had been “resurrected”. You have no evidence of this other than a scholarly assumption (that Paul “received” this info from Peter and James during his two week stay in Jerusalem, as Paul states in Galatians.) In reality we have no idea when Christians started believing that Jesus had been resurrected. Maybe the earliest Christians only believed that Jesus had been “raised” from the dead and it was Paul who invented the resurrection concept. Can you prove otherwise?
That is pretty weak evidence to base your life on.
LikeLike
You believe that the early creed indicates that within three years of Jesus’ death his followers were claiming that he had been “resurrected”. You have no evidence of this other than a scholarly assumption (that Paul “received” this info from Peter and James during his two week stay in Jerusalem, as Paul states in Galatians.) In reality we have no idea when Christians started believing that Jesus had been resurrected. Maybe the earliest Christians only believed that Jesus had been “raised” from the dead and Paul invented the resurrection concept. Can you prove otherwise?
That is pretty weak evidence to base your life on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
re: “Your belief is based on Paul’s vague statement that he “saw the Christ” and on the assumption that Paul received the early creed from Peter and James three years after Jesus’ death based on Paul’s claim that he met with these two guys three years after Jesus’ death. ”
Yes, I do agree with scholars that say the creed was formulated and in use within a few years after Jesus’ death.
What YOU don’t seem to get, though, Gary, is that NOTHING HINGES ON THAT.
If the creed was formulated 10 years later, it changes NOTHING about how I approach the question of whether Jesus was resurrected, or whether the nails holding him to the cross all popped out, and he just walked away, because the Roman soldiers were on lunch break. (or, you can substitute any one of the myriad of other explanations, as you wish).
But, I’ve said all this before. You just don’t seem to want to either accept it, or, you just have really poor reading comprehension skills.
LikeLike
does this creed make any sense?
he says that 500 people saw elvis , then he tells his readers “you better believe elvis rose from the dead”
if 500 people saw elvis and you could get in touch with them, do you need to use seed and plant analogies to prove resurrection ? do you need to hammer again and again with threats “you better believe, or else” ?
“Now if elvis is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then elvis has not been raised; 14 and if elvis has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised elvis—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised”
you just said elvis was seen by 500 witnesses….why the tune has changed?
its like telling satan “believe in god” when satan just saw god in the garden of eden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point!
LikeLike
that’s not a “good point” It’s a stoopid point.
the issue that Paul is addressing in 1 Cor, regarding the resurrection, is NOT about Jesus’ resurrection, nor about “proving” it, nor the nature of it. the ISSUE is whether “WE” (the Corinth readers) will be resurrected, and Paul even points out that some of them were saying there would be no resurrection. And, if “WE” (the Corinth readers) are resurrected, then what will be the nature of our resurrection?
It appears to me that neither you nor Mr Heathcliff have any appreciable degree of reading comprehension, or, you have very VERY selective comprehension.
LikeLike
If you had seen a walking, talking resurrected body; allegedly the same body that you had discussed with Peter and James in Jerusalem for two weeks; what would be the best evidence for this alleged appearance? Answer: A description of the body!!! But Paul never does this in any of his epistles. Even the anonymous author of Acts never quotes Paul as having claimed to have seen a walking, talking body.
So that is Mr. Heathcliff’s point: If you want to convince people that resurrections are real, why not present the best evidence: that at least three people (Paul, Peter, and James) all saw the same resurrected body and that their descriptions of this resurrected body corroborate.
But Paul doesn’t do that. He just gives a theological diatribe about this concept.
LikeLike
Paul is NOT trying to convince anyone that “resurrections are real”. He is stating that “THE resurrection” – meaning what we commonly call “the general resurrection” – is going to happen.
Your complaint – and that of Heathcliffe – is that Paul doesn’t say what you’d LIKE him to say. But Paul is not answering a question about whether Jesus’ resurrection was “real”, but rather, are “we” – ie, the Cornithian readers – going to be resurrected, and how, and when.
It is clear, in 1 cor 15, that Paul believes in a general resurrection – and, if there is no “general resurrection”, then how could Jesus himself have been raised (he asks, rhetorically). As you know, Paul saw Jesus’ resurrection as the first of the “general resurrection”.
In other words, our resurrections will be materially no different than Jesus’. It’s all a part of the same “general resurrection” – everybody gets resurrected in the same fashion – and this applied to Jesus as well.
If Paul were to describe Jesus’ resurrection body, he would have used no different language than how he describes our resurrection bodies: we don’t have a different resurrection body than Jesus had.
Your complaint is that Paul didn’t say “Jesus was sown perishable, but was raised imperishable. Jesus’ body was sown in weakness, but it was raised in power. Jesus’ body was transformed ‘in the twinkling of any eye’.” — Yet, this is the nature of the resurrected body of Jesus that others had seen.
What Paul is TRYING HARD to communicate is that our resurrections will be no different than that of Jesus, who was the first of the resurrected. So, he doesn’t focus on “what Jesus looked like as a resurrected being”, but rather, is very clearly wishing to convey that we too will be resurrected – in this order, in this fashion.
Just sit down and read the whole of 1 Cor 15.
I suppose it would be nice if we had some letter from Paul in which he describes exactly what he claims he saw (“have I not seen our Lord”?), but, we just don’t have that.
However, what we do have is Paul describing OUR resurrections – and Jesus’ resurrection – as being all a part of the same “resurrection”: ” For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless;”
LikeLike
Baloney. If Paul was trying to convince others that the general resurrection was going to happen, he would point to the appearance of Jesus as the “first fruits” of that general resurrection in a walking, talking body as the best evidence. He did not. And I would bet that the reason he did not, is because Paul never claimed to have seen a walking, talking body. Paul saw a talking bright light…in his head.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary –
don’t go switching your own verbage, trying to pass it off as your original argument.
You said clearly: “So that is Mr. Heathcliff’s point: If you want to convince people that resurrections are real, why not present the best evidence: that at least three people (Paul, Peter, and James) all saw the same resurrected body and that their descriptions of this resurrected body corroborate.”
This is NOT “If Paul was trying to convince others that the general resurrection was going to happen…”
That is a totally different topic than what you first stated.
And, I would strongly argue against this second position of yours anyway: “If Paul was trying to convince others that the general resurrection was going to happen, he would point to the appearance of Jesus as the “first fruits” of that general resurrection in a walking, talking body as the best evidence”.
A “walking, talking body” is NOT the “best evidence”, because that would portray a false picture – one which you evidently hold in your rather fundamentalist mind. But, it was NOT a “walking, talking body”, which could be misconstrued (as you very VERY often misconstrue it) as a “walking, talking CORPSE”.
It was a TRANSFORMED body, Gary. And Paul is trying his dardest to try to get people – some of who must have been like you – to understand it was NOT a “walking, talking CORPSE” that had “come back to life”. It was a dead body that had been TRANSFORMED. And Paul is trying very VERY hard to make that understood.
Of course, his attempt didn’t work with YOU. You still think he’s supposed to be talking about a “walking, talking body (corpse)”. That’s what YOU want to understand it as. And, that understanding is as wrong now as it was when you were a literalist fundamentalist.
LikeLike
FACT: The idea of a general resurrection originated with the Jews. However, as with all things “religious,” there were different and conflicting opinions on exactly how it would happen. For example (as taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia) … “As to the question, Who will be raised from death? the answers given vary greatly in rabbinical literature.”
Although the Christian scriptures pronounced Paul as a scholar in the Hebrew religion, according to information found in the Jewish Encyclopedia, his perspective of Yeshua being the promised Messiah … as well his resurrection views were far from the original teachings.
And this continues to bring me back to the same question: Why do Christians place so much credibility in a man who altered the beliefs that had been in place for thousands and thousands of years related to the promised Messiah?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan –
This is something that is very difficult for lots of people to wrap their minds around, but IF (and, if, and if) Jesus were indeed resurrected, it did NOT HAPPEN because of somebody’s “idea” or “concept” of resurrection. Those ideas and concepts – no matter how accurate or inaccurate – did not CAUSE Jesus’ resurrection.
IF (and if, and if) Jesus were resurrected, then “it is what it is”, whether it fit anybody’s pre-conceived ideas of how resurrections should occur.
IF (and if and if) Jesus were resurrected, then THAT event should, by all means, become the thing that answers once and for all the question of “what is a resurrection, and how and when will it occur”.
As you full-well know, there were LOTS of “theories” about resurrection. And NONE of them, at the time of Jesus, were prescribed as a “dogma”, or even as an established “doctrine” among the Jews.
So what I’m saying is that REGARDLESS of the myriad of Jewish views regarding resurrection, IF Jesus were truly resurrected, then that event would override any previous conceptions that anyone might have had.
And, of course, this is all the very basis for (current-day) Jewish opposition to Jesus’ resurrection: It wasn’t supposed to happen that way, it wasn’t supposed to be an itenerant preacher that gets resurrected, and so on.
But, very clearly, all that existed at (and before) the time of Jesus was a NUMBER of sometimes very conflicting ideas and theories about resurrection.
When Jesus was resurrected (provided, of course, that that event really did happen) then that event would supersede any prior idea or theory. In other words, “to our great surprise, resurrection didn’t happen in the way Sect-A, nor Sect-B, nor Sect-C thought it would”.
But if you think that there is something “amiss” about Jesus’ resurrection, then it can only be because you yourself buy into some preconceived idea of how it was “supposed” to have happened – yet- there was no agreement whatsoever on that point, and even if there was, it could only have been an incorrect preconception IF Jesus were, in fact, resurrected.
LikeLike
Nan –
as to this: “his [Paul’s] perspective of Yeshua being the promised Messiah … as well his resurrection views were far from the original teachings.
YES, they WERE “far from the original teachings”. Jesus’ resurrection DID NOT FIT with ANY one of the myriad of preconceived ideas.
And, really, Nan, there were no “original teachings” anyway. There were a variety of things taught by different Rabbis, different sects, and so on. There was no agreement at all as to who the Messiah would be or what resurrection would be like, or any other such thing. Not in the first century.
So, if you’re trying to somehow discredit Paul by saying his perspective of the Messiah was ‘far from the original teachings’, then you are failing to grasp that (a) there was no single set of ‘original teachings’ to begin with, and (b) “Messiah” became defined more clearly by Paul because Jesus was resurrected.
LikeLike
Yes. You nailed it. I have no faith AT ALL in anything Paul put forth. So yes. My goal is to discredit him. He was a fluke, a fake, a wanna’be. And beyond that, because the TRUE Jews did not respect his POV, he essentially said, “Fine! I’ll show you!” and took his “message” to the Gentiles who lapped it up because it fell right in with their beliefs and ideas about “divine revelations” and “mysteries” and dying-rising saviors.
And we all know what became of his efforts. The existing Christian faith that believes in a “saintly” guy dying and returning to life through a “divine” miracle referred to as … ta-da! … the resurrection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that’s a great theory. Especially from one who just now discovered the Jewish Encyclopedia, and who, about two days ago, was using “my jewish learning” as a reference… Yeh, you got all the “ammo” to discredit Paul with, I’m sure.
Except, “true Jews” such as Peter and John also were saying Jesus was resurrected, and was Messiah, unless you are some kind of “Peter and John” mythicist who believes that Paul invented the story of the resurrection, as well as the characters “Peter, John and James….”
Ah, wait… Maybe you don’t think Peter and John were “True Scotsmen” (I mean, “True Jews”). So, tell me, Nan – exactly WHICH version of “Messiah” and “resurrection” did the True Jew – believe in?
LikeLike
Just a quick response … you are wrong. This is not my first exposure to the Jewish Encyclopedia. I just didn’t reference it from the beginning because MOST people aren’t familiar with it. After all, it isn’t like reading a children’s storybook. Plus, it provides the TRUE background history and perspective of the Jewish people related to their religion — as opposed to what Paul used to convince a FEW Jewish people (and the Gentiles) that he had Special Knowledge about the Messiah.
LikeLike
OK, fair enough.
But you’re still missing the one, obvious and glaring point: There were no “rules” about “How Resurrection Will Occur”, nor about “Who The Messiah Will Be”. There were lots of thoughts and theories on both topics.
It’s like having a number of theories about how the next election is going to go: They might all be well-thought-through, they might take into consideration all the “stats” from past elections and so on – but ultimately – the next election is going to go however it goes. If somebody says “I theorize that Bob Smith will win”, and Bob Smith does win, it can NOT be rationally said that Bob Smith won because somebody guessed it correctly beforehand. NOR can it be said that Bob Smith really didn’t win the election because somebody else had predicted Jane Doe would win.
You don’t seem to be catching that concept at all.
When Jesus was resurrected, THAT was the “reality of resurrection” – REGARDLESS of whether anybody beforehand had guessed correctly or not.
I don’t think you quite get that Jesus’ resurrection – IF it actually occurred – REQUIRED that other, pre-conceived ideas of resurrection were immediately obsoleted. They were immediately fit for the garbage pail.
LikeLike
Your “reality” … not mine.
And you can toss whatever you want into the garbage pail, but several thousand years of history PRIOR TO Paul’s “divine vision” carry considerably more validity.
LikeLike
re: “…but several thousand years of history PRIOR TO Paul’s “divine vision” carry considerably more validity.”
Oh, you mean like the several thousand years of history before the discovery of electricity? Or gravit? Or Einsteins theory?
Nan, the whole world is accustomed to revamping views based on new information. Once it was thought that nothing could travel faster than light. Now, that’s been revamped.
Physics in general has undergone a million changes, due to the finding of new information, new fact. And, sometimes, old theories have to get tossed out because new discoveries make the old ideas obsolete.
The exact same thing happens in most all (if not all) the sciences. How many times have historians had to rewrite their own theories because some new archaeological find was discovered that made their old views obsolete?
So, NO – I do NOT at all buy into your idea that prior ideas carry more validity than a new “finding” that disproves them.
i’m sorry, but that may be among the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever heard you say.
LikeLike
Certainly! I agree! Changes & accomplishments are continually occurring in the sciences. And yes! New discoveries are regularly disproving old theories in many fields.
BUT … the same cannot be said for religion. Particularly as related to a dead man being resurrected back to life. Face it. Christian beliefs have remained stagnant for over two thousand years. And no matter how you spin it, Paul’s vision doesn’t make it true.
LikeLike
re: “And yes! New discoveries are regularly disproving old theories in many fields.
BUT … the same cannot be said for religion”.
Hmmmm…. Think any changes were required in Judaism once the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD?
If you think not, then, I’m just gonna have to write you off as a nincompoop, because the destruction of the Temple was about the most earthshaking thing that could have happened in Judaism, and the changes brought about because of it were enormous.
Clearly, there are real-life things – new discoveries, new facts introduced, etc – that change religious beliefs.
IF (and if, and if) Jesus were indeed bodily resurrected in an historical event, it too would bring about radical changes in Judaism, just as the destruction of the Temple did. Unless, of course, the fact of Jesus’ resurrection was just ignored. Unfortunately, some facts do get ignored. Ask any doctor, and I’ll bet you’ll hear some story about how he/she told a patient “you have a serious condition that needs immediate treatment”, only to have the patient ignore it. Other facts – like perhaps a soldier who has just had his face blown off by a hand grenade – aren’t as easy to ignore.
But, heck, even the Catholic Church ignored the fact that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe for centuries after it was known – and then, finally gave in and decided otherwise. I hear they even let Galileo off the hook for being a heretic. (hey, Catholics are resistant to change, aren’t they?)
So, I think your statement that “…the same cannot be said for religion” is spurious, at best. A totally subjective opinion, to be kind. And flat-out argumentative with no basis in fact, at worst.
But, in NO case is it a statement that I’d agree with.
LikeLike
I stand by my declaration. The core beliefs of Judaism have not changed. Nor have the core beliefs of Christianity.
There have been numerous changes in interpretation, modes and style of worship, even the architecture of churches and synagogues. But two things remain the same. The Jews are still waiting for their mashiach and the Christians continue to believe Jesus died on a cross and was resurrected.
LikeLike
and guess what, Nan – Jews still believe in a God, and so do Christians.
and atheists still don’t.
what? do you want me to make an argument – an entirely nonsensical argument – about atheists never changing?
when you’ve got something else more serious to offer, lemme know.
LikeLike
Not sure why you brought up atheists but it seems the discussion on the resurrection of Jesus has ended.
BTW, just for the record, I am not an atheist.
LikeLike
/////
And, I would strongly argue against this second position of yours anyway: “If Paul was trying to convince others that the general resurrection was going to happen, he would point to the appearance of Jesus as the “first fruits” of that general resurrection in a walking, talking body as the best evidence”.
”. It was a dead body that had been TRANSFORMED. And Paul is trying very VERY hard to make that understood.”
/////
ftbanged, paul is telling his pals that five hundred people saw a transformed body ?
did this “transformed body” eat and drink and have holes?
if yes, why do you need to “believe” ?
LikeLike
FTBANGED:
he issue that Paul is addressing in 1 Cor, regarding the resurrection, is NOT about Jesus’ resurrection, nor about “proving” it, nor the nature of it.
ftbanged,
“Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters”
he is reminding them , ftbanged.
“Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d”
” If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.”
“For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
ftbanged , whats all this faith business? there were 500 witnesses.
“the ISSUE is whether “WE” (the Corinth readers) will be resurrected,”
so why was THERE an issue?
“and Paul even points out that some of them were saying there would be no resurrection.”
why?
LikeLiked by 1 person