The Gospel of Peter’s Talking Cross
Christian apologists tells us that we must trust the historicity of the Gospels because early Christians were writing Greco-Roman biographies. Although not as strict as modern biographies, in this genre of ancient biography, the reader would still require that the facts about the central character be historical. The author could not make things up (fiction). So whatever these early Christian authors said about Jesus we can trust to be true.
Why would they lie?
But how do Christians explain the existence of so many non-canonical Gospels, also written by early Christians? There’s the Gospel of Peter, the Infancy Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and on and on. Why is one group of “Gospels” historically reliable and the other group is not? Did it all boil down to whether or not a particular “Gospel” won enough votes at a particular meeting or council of Church officials (the Magisterium)???
Protestant Christians insist we ignore the authority of the Magisterium on all other doctrines and Christian teachings but when it comes to which Gospels are “in” and which are “out” the Magisterium is given the final say.
How odd.
Are Protestant Christians being irrational?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
When a three day old corpse gleefully leaps out of his tomb right as rain, scares the crap out of his followers, indulges in a meal of fish sans chips, and eventualy floats off to outer space a talking cross is surely a mere party trick in comparison.
Be a Christian – you know it’s the right thing to do.
🤦
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Canonical Gospels are dated between AD 60-90. They are committed to trying to show Jesus as the climax to God’s covenant with Israel. They are filled with historical people and events.
By contrast, the gnostic gospels are dated to the 2nd-3rd century, they have all the hallmarks of Gnosticism: a belief that the material world is evil and that “salvation” lies in the “secret knowledge” that allows one to transcend the material world. There is little to no historical connections with anything in the Gnostic gospels.
Basically, the reason why it would be moronic to accept the gnostic gospels as historical is because the very philosophy and worldview in the gnostic gospels rejects the material, the historical.
That, plus no scholar or historian claims there is anything really historical, let alone historically reliable, with the gnostic gospels. I cannot believe that you, Gary, honestly agree with the argument you laid out in this post. It is utterly ludicrous, and I have to believe that deep down you know it is.
LikeLike
“The Canonical Gospels are dated between AD 60-90. They are committed to trying to show Jesus as the climax to God’s covenant with Israel. They are filled with historical people and events.”
Let me help you out there, Joel. The term you are looking for is Historical Fiction.
Oh, and ftr, the gospels are not considered historically reliable. either.
LikeLike
The Gospel of Peter was written in the early to mid second century. Therefore, its author could have been a contemporary of the author of the Gospel of John who wrote his gospel at the end of the first century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you can’t tell the difference between the Canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels, well, that’s par for the course with you.
LikeLike
That wasn’t what I was responding to. You really do need to read replies with a lot more attention.
You are still trying to make the point the gospels are historically reliable.
I was just correcting your pedantic error. They are no more than historical fiction.
There fixed it for you again.
Your welcome.
LikeLike
The Gospel of Peter reads very much like the canonical Gospels. It uses historical persons (Herod and Pilate) and talks about alleged events not philosophy:
The Gospel of Peter
Translated by Raymond Brown
[1] But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor one of his judges. And since they did not desire to wash, Pilate stood up. [2] And then Herod the king orders the Lord to be taken away, having said to them, ‘What I ordered you to do, do.’ [3] But Joseph, the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, had been standing there; and knowing they were about to crucify him, he came before Pilate and requested the body of the Lord for burial. [4] And Pilate, having sent to Herod, requested his body. [5] And Herod said: ‘Brother Pilate, even if no one had requested him, we would have buried him, since indeed Sabbath is dawning. For in the Law it has been written: The sun is not to set on one put to death.’
And he gave him over to the people before the first day of their feast of the Unleavened Bread. [6] But having taken the Lord, running, they were pushing him and saying, ‘Let us drag along the Son of God now that we have power over him.’ [7] And they clothed him with purple and sat him on a chair of judgment, saying: ‘Judge justly, King of Israel.’ [8] And a certain one of them, having brought a thorny crown, put it on the head of the Lord. [9] And others who were standing there were spitting in his face, and others slapped his cheeks. Others were jabbing him with a reed; and some scourged him, saying, ‘With such honor let us honor the Son of God.'[10] And they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the middle of them. But he was silent as having no pain. [11] And when they had set the cross upright, they inscribed that THIS IS THE KING OF ISRAEL. [12] And having put his garments before him, they divided them up and threw as a gamble for them. [13] But a certain one of those wrongdoers reviled them, saying: ‘We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, having become Savior of men, what injustice had he done to you?’ [14] And having become irritated at him, they ordered that there be no leg-breaking, so that he might die tormented.
[15] But is was midday, and darkness held fast all Judea; and they were distressed and anxious lest the sun had set, since he was still living. [For] it is written for them: Let not the sun set on one put to death. [16] And someone of them said: ‘Give him to drink gall with vinegary wine.’ And having made a mixture, they gave to drink. [17] And they fulfilled all things and completed the sins on their own head. [18] But many went around with lamps, thinking that it was night, and they fell. [19] And the Lord screamed out, saying: ‘My power, O power, you have forsaken me.’ And having said this, he was taken up. [20] And at the same hour the veil of the Jerusalem sanctuary was torn into two. [21] And they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him on the earth; and all the earth was shaken, and a great fear came about. [22] Then the sun shone, and it was found to be the ninth hour. [23] And the Jews rejoiced and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he was one who had seen the many good things he did. [24] And having taken the Lord, he washed and tied him with a linen cloth and brought him into his own sepulcher, called the Garden of Joseph.
[25] Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, having come to know how much wrong they had done themselves, began to beat themselves and say: ‘Woe to our sins. The judgment has approached and the end of Jerusalem.’ [26] But I with the companions was sorrowful; and having been wounded in spirit, we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers and as wishing to set fire to the sanctuary. [27] In addition to all these things we were fasting; and we were sitting mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath. [28] But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, having gathered together with one another, having heard that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying that ‘If at his death these very great signs happened, behold how just he was,’ [29] feared (especially the elders) and came before Pilate, begging him and saying, [30] ‘Give over soldiers to us in order that we may safeguard his burial place for three days, lest, having come, his disciples steal him, and the people accept that he is risen from the death, and they do us wrong.’ [31] But Pilate gave over to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to safeguard the sepulcher. And with these the elders and scribes came to the burial place. [32] And having rolled a large stone, all who were there, together with the centurion and the soldiers, placed it against the door of the burial place. [33] And they marked it with seven wax seals; and having pitched a tent there, they safeguarded it. [34] But early when the Sabbath was dawning, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding area in order that they might see the sealed tomb.
[35] But in the night in which the Lord’s day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, ‘Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?’ [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, ‘Yes.’ [43] And so those people were seeking a common perspective to go off and make these things clear to Pilate; [44] and while they were still considering it through, there appear again the opened heavens and a certain man having come down and entered into the burial place. [45] Having seen these things, those around the centurion hastened at night before Pilate (having left the sepulcher which they were safeguarding) and described all the things that they indeed had seen, agonizing greatly and saying: ‘Truly he was God’s Son.’
[46] In answer Pilate said: ‘I am clean of the blood of the Son of God, but it was to you that this seemed [the thing to do].'[47] Then all, having come forward, were begging and exhorting him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say to no one what they had seen. [48] ‘For,’ they said, ‘it is better for us to owe the debt of the greatest sin in the sight of God than to fall into the hands of the Jewish people and be stoned.’ [49] And so Pilate ordered the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord’s Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, ‘If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things. [53] But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? [54] For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.’
[55] And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: [56] ‘Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.’ [57] Then the women fled frightened. [58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord …
LikeLike
That, plus no scholar or historian claims there is anything really historical, let alone historically reliable, with the gnostic gospels.
The Gospel of Peter discusses many of the same (alleged) events in the canonical Gospels. So if you are saying we cannot trust this source then should we chuck the historicity of the crucifixion and empty tomb??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems I unwittingly conflated the Gospel of Peter with the other gnostic Gospels.
Nevertheless, the fact–the scholarly consensus–is that the Gospel of Peter is, at best, a later, 2nd century work. That alone goes a long way to answer your question. Something written in 70 AD is much closer to the events than something written in the 2nd century AD.
Besides, the basis of your argument really is just rooted in your assertion that there is no supernatural. That is why you honestly think there is no difference between claiming someone resurrected and claiming an inanimate piece of wood can talk.
LikeLike
Does the fact that a book is written within 30 years of an alleged event guarantee that it is more historically accurate than a book written 100 years later?
LikeLike
It’s a pretty good indication. But hey, find me a scholar who thinks Gospel of Peter is more reliable! Lol
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the reliability of the source be more important than the proximity of the date of the writing of the story to the date of the alleged event?
But hey, find me a scholar who thinks Gospel of Peter is more reliable! Lol
If the early Christians were writing historical biographies when they wrote about Jesus, and early Christians had no reason to lie or invent fiction, why do you reject the historicity of the talking cross of the Gospel of Peter? What is it about this pericope that you reject as non-historical? Is it because it involves odd supernatural features?
LikeLike
Proximity to the date plays a large part in determining historical reliability.
A talking piece of wood is not “supernatural.” Lol…
Again, if you cannot tell the difference, I can’t help you.
LikeLike
I agree with you that if we have two good sources, the earliest source tends to be viewed as more reliable. But when we have two anonymous sources, then what should we do?
A piece of would speaking and saying, “yes”, is not in the realm of the natural world. Do you accept the historicity of this event (the cross speaking in a human language as it comes out of the tomb of Jesus)? If not, why?
LikeLike
There you go with the wrong understanding of “anonymous” when applied to the Gospels.
Well, again, if you think three giants walking out of Jesus’ tombs, along with a walking/talking cross (I mean, why would the cross be buried in the tomb with Jesus to begin with) is pretty much the same kind of thing as the Canonical Gospels description of Jesus’ resurrection, then I’m sorry–I cannot take you seriously.
Deep down, I don’t think you take that claim seriously either.
LikeLike
(Comment deleted. No personal insults, please.)
LikeLike
Well, if YOU took me seriously, I’d be concerned.
(A) Yes, the Gospels are “anonymous,” in that they aren’t signed WITHIN the text. At the same time, they have always been connected with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from very early on. And, in any case, all of them are extremely early.
(B) You are simply wrong and out of your depth to claim that “scholarly consensus” says the Gospels are historically unreliable. I have explained to you dozens of times what the Gospels are–how they are history in the form of story–and you just can’t get it through your head.
LikeLike
Church tradition does not count as evidence. They are anonymous. Period.
Early? Consensus places gMark no earlier than 70 and gJohn around 90. Some critical scholars consider it may have been written in the early second century.
No, I am not wrong. It is no fault of mine you do not understand the term historically unreliable and why historians apply the term to the gospels.
Maybe this has something to do with your fundamental Christian bias?
And you still have not provided me with any historians who support your assertion the gospels are historically reliable.
LikeLike
they [the Gospels} have always been connected with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from very early on. And, in any case, all of them are extremely early.
How early on? 100 years? 150 years? Please clarify?
You are simply wrong and out of your depth to claim that “scholarly consensus” says the Gospels are historically unreliable. I have explained to you dozens of times what the Gospels are–how they are history in the form of story–and you just can’t get it through your head.
I don’t remember Ark claiming that there was a scholarly consensus that the Gospels are historically unreliable. If he did, I too think he is wrong. The majority of Bible scholars are believers in the Jesus Story and their only sources for the Jesus Story are the Gospels, so of course they are going to believe that the Gospels are historically reliable! To say otherwise, dooms the Christian Faith. What I’m sure Ark meant to say is that the scholarly consensus, outside of evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants (LCMS Lutherans, for instance) is that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses. This is even the current position of the Catholic Church. If you don’t believe that, check out the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
LikeLike
M, M, L = written 60-80 AD; J = written around 90 AD….EARLY
“I don’t remember Ark claiming that there was a scholarly consensus that the Gospels are historically unreliable.”–stop gaslighting. Both you and Ark have said that very thing NUMEROUS times over the years. Come on.
Your “logic” is a very impressive set up to insulate you within your hyper-skepticism bubble. “Oh, some scholars think the Gospels are historically reliable! BUT THEY’RE BELIEVERS! That means I can dismiss them! ….now, show me scholars and historians who believe the Gospels are historically reliable! You can’t? HA! I WIN!”
SMH
LikeLike
Can you give me a list of well-known, respected, non-Christian historians (from the last 50 years) who explicitly state that the Gospels are historically reliable documents?
LikeLike
No, I can’t, because I haven’t done an extensive investigation on this topic since this morning. Lol…
The fact is, though, that many, many biblical scholars and historians consider the Gospels to be historically reliable, and you know it.
And I’m going out on a limb here, but if a non-Christian historian became convinced, that historian would probably become a Christian, and you would instantly dismiss that historian’s conclusion on the grounds he was a Christian. Lol…
LikeLike
I think you have answered your own question. The only historians who believe that the Gospels are historically reliable sources are Christian believers. This is no different than the situation with the Book of Mormon. Very few non-Mormon historians believe that this book is historically reliable either. Both books are works of religious propaganda.
Just because a Trinitarian Christian historian becomes convinced that the Book of Mormon is historically reliable does not in any way confirm the historicity of the stories in the Book of Mormon. Ditto with the Christian Bible. Historians use the Historical Method for analyzing all historical claims, even claims that include supernatural features. Both of these books fail the Historical Method for historical reliability.
LikeLike
Gary, your are simply self-deluded.
LikeLike
No. I believe I am asking very rational questions. Your fellow Christian, Aussiestockman, seems to agree with my assessment of the historicity of the Gospels. Basically, they might be true, they might not be true. No way for anyone to know for sure. Same thing for the Gospel of Peter. Why? Because if we allow for the supernatural, anything is possible. You on the other hand, want us to believe that four texts from Antiquity, written decades after the alleged events, by authors who do not identify themselves in their texts, whose eyewitness status is hotly disputed among scholars, whose status as independent sources is hotly disputed, are historically reliable. Rational? I don’t think so.
No, Joel. It is YOU who is deluded, my Christian friend.
LikeLike
You made the assertion on a previous post the gospels are historically reliable.
Your exact words.
After numerous requests am STILL waiting for you to provide names of historians who support your assertion that the gospels are historically reliable.
As you have hand waved away my question, insulted my intelligence and flatly refused to provide the name of a single genuine historian who agrees with your position on this matter I am calling it as I see it.
You, Mister Anderson are a damn liar.
LikeLike
I’ve been consistent in what I’ve said this entire time. Where have I lied? Or is that just your knee-jerk temper tantrum tactic?
Just because there is artistic license going on in the Gospels, that doesn’t make them historically unreliable.
LikeLike
You asserted the gospels are historically reliable. Your exact words.
That is a blatent falsehood
Now, where are the names of those historians that support your view?
Or are you going to lie once more?
LikeLike
No, that is true. They are.
LikeLike
Please provide a list of ten non-Christian historians, living within the last 50 years, who explicitly state that the four canonical Gospels are historically reliable sources.
(You know you can’t and that is why you are prevaricating.)
LikeLike
Then provide the names of a few historians that agree with your assertion.
LikeLike
Only Christians believe that the Gospels are historically reliable, and Joel knows it.
LikeLike
It is telling of Mister Anderson’s character that it took numerous comments for him to even respond to my request for the names of historians who support his assertion of historical reliabilty and when he did he only restated that the gospels are historically reliable. Even then still not providing the name of a single genuine historian.
He switches between prevaricating, being disingenuous to the verge of lying. Or possibly lying outright.
LikeLike
I think Dr. Anderson intentionally prevaricates as a defensive strategy. It’s called delay and distract. He prevaricates to delay, and he repeatedly attacks the character and intelligence of the critic to divert the conversation away from the blatant error/discrepancy/wild supernatural claim in Christian theology under discussion. This tactic is very popular with online conservative Christian apologists. One evangelical apologist in Florida got so “good” at attacking atheist critics that he got sued for liable, costing him tens of thousands of dollars. (His online side-kick was the son-in-law of evangelical NT scholar Michael Licona.)
I am all things to all men if it wins souls to Christ (and maintains the social respectability of Christian superstitions)…even if I must lie, cheat, prevaricate, and libel my critics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is the story of Jesus casting demons into 2,000 pigs who then run down a hill to drown themselves in a sea historical fact or artistic license, and, how do you know either way?
LikeLike
What is the difference between a talking corpse and a talking piece of wood? Both defy the laws of nature. I hold both concepts as preposterous and highly improbable.
So why do you reject the Gospel of Peter’s talking wood but accept the Gospel of Matthew’s talking corpse? Seriously, Joel. Both defy the laws of nature so why do you accept one as historical and one as fiction?
Let’s recap: The only reason why you say we should trust the historicity of the canonical Gospels versus the non-canonical Gospel of Peter is that:
1.The canonical Gospels were written closer to the time of the alleged events they describe.
2.Most Bible scholars reject the historicity of the Gospel of Peter.
Although the closer the proximity of the writing of a text with the date of the events which that text describes is usually viewed as more historically reliable, the character and reliability of the source is much more important. The identity of the authors of both the canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Peter are unknown and disputed. In addition, it is entirely possible that the Gospel of Peter was written within a few years of the Gospel of John, making their authors contemporaries.
The Gospel of Peter simply adds one new feature to the established Empty Tomb Story of the canonical Gospels. If we reject everything the Gospel of Peter states as fact we are forced to reject the Empty Tomb. Based on what reason are your accepting the Empty Tomb as historical fact but rejecting the talking cross as fiction?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You really are just trying too hard to try to buttress your nonsensical post.
Again, if you honestly cannot see the difference between the resurrection account in the Canonical Gospels and the one in the Gospel of Peter–you cannot be taken seriously.
LikeLike
There is very little difference between the two accounts. The one major difference is the account of three very tall men exiting the tomb with a talking cross.
Are you saying that the only reason you believe this pericope is non-historical is because it was written 25-50 years after the writing of the Gospel of John (circa 90-100 CE)?? The authors of both of these Christian texts may have been contemporaries. Why believe one contemporary and not the other.
LikeLike
“Very tall men”???? The Gospel of Peter says they were so tall that their heads went up into the heavens!!!! Hahaha….
Come on, Gary.
LikeLike
So what? Anything is possible if you believe that the supernatural (the actions of gods and/or devils) operate within our universe.
Please list why you reject this giant men with a talking cross pericope in the Gospel of Peter but accept as historical the Gospel of Luke’s tale of the revivified/supernaturally transformed body of Jesus suddenly appearing in a locked room to his disciples, telling them to check out his body of flesh, and asking for a fish lunch.
LikeLike
You’re not a serious person.
LikeLike
And what about the Infancy Gospels? Here are the opening lines of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Once again, it is in story form, just like the canonical Gospels, not a discussion of philosophy. It describes Jesus turning non-living material into living material. That seems pretty consistent with Jesus’ miraculous repertoire from the canonical Gospels; no talking cross here! So why do you reject the historicity of the stories in this non-canonical Gospel, Joel?
I, Thomas the Israelite, am reporting to you, all my brothers from the nations, to reveal the childhood and the greatness of our Lord Jesus Christ, what he did in my country after he was born. This is the beginning of it. Chapter 2 (1) When the boy Jesus was five years old, he was playing in a narrow part of a rushing stream. (2) He was gathering the flowing waters into ponds, and immediately they were made clean, and he ordered these things with a single word. (3) And after he made clay, he molded twelve sparrows from it. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things. But there were also many other children playing with him. (4) Then, a certain Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the Sabbath. Immediately, he departed and reported to Jesus’ father, Joseph, “Look, your child is in the stream and he took clay and formed twelve birds and profaned the Sabbath?”
(5) And Joseph went to the area and when he saw him, he shouted, “Why are you doing these things that are not permitted on the Sabbath?” (6) Jesus, however, clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows, “Depart, fly, and remember me now that you are alive.” And the sparrows departed shrieking. (7) When the Jews saw this, they were amazed. After they had gone away, they described to their leaders what they had seen Jesus do.
LikeLike
Gary — off-thread, but — I posted a msg saying “you don’t read much”, and you deleted the msg with a warning to me…
Do I have to put up with this kind of stuff from Ark?
“It merely illustrates that something prompted your belief in such a wackadoodle idea and yet while you post bloviating vacuous comment after comment you still refuse to give details concerning why you consider yourself a Christian.
I consider you lack any credibility and the more you post your integrity is also highly suspect.
In fact one feels obliged to ask why on earth you continue to post your prevaricating drivel rather than simply set up a site of your own and invite fellow believers to participate in your delusion?”
LikeLike
I just edited his comments. You both need to stop attacking each other personally and only attack each other’s positions.
LikeLike
Roger that. For my part, I commit to do my best.
And, again – when you said earlier, something like “maybe we need to back off…”, I really appreciated you doing that. And, it gave me the option of stepping back, and offering another possible approach. Much appreciated.
LikeLike
What is your definition of “supernatural”?
LikeLike
@Joel.
The scholarly consensus is the gospels are anonymous.
The scholarly consensus is the gospels are historically unreliable.
How you don’t accept the consensus on these things, Mister Anderson?
LikeLike
“Why is one group of “Gospels” historically reliable and the other group is not?”
The Gospel of Peter says, “But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea.” The Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins, “I Thomas, an Israelite, write you this account.”
These two books are not canonical, and yet they clearly identify the authors of the books as people who lived with Jesus. The canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) don’t identify the authors.
Hmm–I guess just because it’s written down in black and white doesn’t mean it’s actual history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps the Church recognised early on that, if the genuine authors were identified there was a chance, albeit remote, that someone might trace the author and realise the account was spurious?
( not that MMKJ aren’t spurious)
LikeLike
‘L’
I think K was Jesus Uncle Ken.
LikeLike
Personally, I’ve always felt it was a shame that Christians would equate the veracity of Jesus’ resurrection with the veracity of The Gospels, such that “The Gospels MUST be historically accurate IN ORDER FOR the resurrection of Jesus to have been an historical event”.
Obviously, the earliest claimants of “Jesus was raised from the dead” didn’t make any such “equivalency”, because The Gospels HADN’T BEEN WRITTEN YET.
The resurrection, IF (and only IF, Gary) it happened as an historical event, clearly it had no dependencies on books that hadn’t been written yet. Either it was true, as a standalone historical event, or it wasn’t. But, if it WAS true – which is to say “if the bodily resurrection of Jesus did happen in an historical event” – then it happened, and the fact that it happened is not changed one bit by books that were written ABOUT that event decades later.
I’m totally OK with anyone questioning things said in The Gospels. Heck, I don’t really know why any of them were “canonized” in the first place. If we KNEW that each Gospel was recording events actually WITNESSED by someone, and they were clearly saying “this is what I myself saw with my own eyes”, then maybe we’d have something to go on. But, that’s clearly not the case at all.
Me? I’m simply convinced that the thing that happened that led to anyone saying “Jesus was raised from the dead” was that he really WAS physically, bodily, “literally” raised from the dead. But, my “conviction” on this point has nothing to do with The Gospels at all.
Personally, I think Christians would be doing themselves a big favor by simply saying “Look, I don’t know if The Gospels are historically reliable or not, but it doesn’t matter, because that has nothing to do with whether Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, and that alone is the central issue in Christianity. If that didn’t happen, then Christianity is a total farce anyway. But determining whether Jesus was bodily raised from the dead is an entirely different matter than the historicity of The Gospels”.
LikeLike
BUT … where is it recorded that Jesus rose from the dead? Answer: the gospels. At last those writings that are accepted as such by “the church.”
Bottom line … none of us living today can ever know for an absolute certainty that such an event took place. It’s all about faith/belief … and personal conviction.
LikeLike
(
commented deleted. No personal insults, please.)
The EARLIEST written record of the claim that “Jesus was raised from the dead” comes decades BEFORE The Gospels.
LikeLike
I’m not Ark.
The point I was making is that the “resurrection” is incapable of ever being proved/validated/confirmed. We don’t know anything about the people who wrote those earliest stories. Moreover, there are all sorts of tales throughout the various religions of similar events. Why is this one any more valid?
LikeLike
Are you sure Nan isn’t my alter ego?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree – the “resurrection itself” can never be proved to have happened. Nobody saw the “moment of resurrection”, nobody was watching Jesus’ corpse when it happened.
There’s not a thing in the New Testament that says otherwise. The whole business started with a CLAIM that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
The question has always been “What PROMPTED somebody to make such an outrageous claim about a dead guy”? Because, unlike your contention that “there are all sorts of tales throughout the various religions of similar events”, that’s not even remotely true. The “tale” of Jesus having been raised from the dead is a “tale” told by people that were contemporaries of Jesus. Jesus was NOT a “far and away” Mythical Being, or fabled “Hero” (i.e., Heracles), but rather, was a person that others had spent considerable time with, and that were with Jesus up until the time he was arrested, sentenced, and crucified. The CLAIM that Jesus was “raised from the dead” was a claim about someone known personally by those who made it. It was like you claiming that your beloved Grandma who passed away last week and was buried had came back to life, crawled out of the grave, and came to visit you. Have you ever told anyone that story? My guess: You haven’t. It would be one whacked-out, looney-bird story to tell anyone, and one that would cause some kind soul to tell you that you need professional help.
So, NO, there are NOT “similar stories” from that region. There ARE “tales about legendary people long ago and far away” that bear similarities, but, none of those people (like Romulus, Heracles, and others) were known personally by ANYONE (because they’re mythological). There’s even one story about some guy named Aristeas that apparently dropped dead in a fuller’s shop, and the shopkeeper left to tell someone, and when they got back, the “apparently dead guy” was gone. The reason anybody knows this story these days is because it was written down some 200 years after the “fact” (whatever the “fact” might have been) by Herodotus. But here again, we’re not talking about a story told by contemporaries. Nobody even knows whether Aristeas existed.
So, I’m sympathetic to the view that “there were similar stories”, but, that doesn’t mean a thing. The story of Icarus flying with “constructed wings” has a lot of similarity to stories we hear of people flying with “constructed wings” these days (on airlines), but, the fact that there was once a mythological story about “flying with constructed wings” hardly means that “nobody flies with constructed wings these days”. A similarity between a fake story and a real one doesn’t mean the real story isn’t real.
LikeLike
The “tale” of Jesus having been raised from the dead is a “tale” told by people that were contemporaries of Jesus … [He] was a person [they] had spent considerable time with …
Perhaps … perhaps not. Since all of this is totally based on stories that have been passed down through the centuries (and modified as needed by early scribes), the accuracy/truth/validity is and will always be in question … except by those who choose to believe them.
LikeLike
Nan –
Literally EVERYTHING you believe is something you CHOOSE to believe.
To “believe” simply means “to accept, as true”. The ONLY thing that is in question is whether there is any REASON to “accept something (whatever that ‘something is’) as true”.
Are there REASONS that the overwheming majority of professional historians “believe” there was a real guy named Jesus who got crucified?
Yep. That’s why the overwhelming majority of historians agree “there was a real Jesus who got crucified”.
Is there REASON to believe (or, “accept, as true”) that some people in the early first century were saying this “real Jesus who got crucified” was “raised from the dead”.
Yep. Plenty of reason to believe that. At least, according to the overwhelming majority of professional historians, archaeologists, paleontologists, textual analysts, Greek and Hebrew documents experts, and many others are concerned.
The only thing in question is “What prompted some people in the first century to start making the claim that ‘Jesus was raised from the dead”?
That’s it. That’s the only question.
Now, you’re welcome to believe that the thing that prompted that claim was that “somebody had a dream one night that the crucified-and-dead Jesus had come back to life”, and said so. That’s fine.
But, then, you gotta ask: Why would anybody bother repeating the dreamers tale of a dream they had??? How many times have i heard someone else’s dream, and NEVER repeated it to anyone else, BECAUSE IT WAS JUST A DREAM? I think, 100% of the time, I’ve NEVER repeated somebody else’s dreams to another person, because it just wasn’t important to do so. But, that’s just me.
But, what I’m getting at is this: No matter what you come up with in order to explain “what prompted somebody to start claiming Jesus was raised from the dead”, it’s JUST YOUR BELIEF.
The only question is whether there are any real REASONS for that belief.
But, make no mistake about it – whatever it is you “believe”, it’s just something you CHOOSE to believe.
LikeLike
But, make no mistake about it – whatever it is you “believe”, it’s just something you CHOOSE to believe.
That says it all … and is relevant to BOTH sides of any discussion that involves disagreement.
LikeLike
Or, they simply made it up…
See how easy that was?
And remember, some people will believe any old nonsense and go to their grave swearing it was true.
LikeLike
The “tale” of Jesus having been raised from the dead is a “tale” told by people that were contemporaries of Jesus. Jesus was NOT a “far and away” Mythical Being, or fabled “Hero” (i.e., Heracles), but rather, was a person that others had spent considerable time with, and that were with Jesus up until the time he was arrested, sentenced, and crucified. The CLAIM that Jesus was “raised from the dead” was a claim about someone known personally by those who made it.
Assumption. Please provide ONE undisputed eyewitness statement of anyone explicitly claiming to have seen the resurrected, walking, talking body of Jesus.
So, to sum up your view: You believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus simply because it was a unique claim? Is that correct?
LikeLike
AHHH, well, let me clarify.
One version of the Hypothesis (or, “explanation”) for the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead is the “Traditional Christian Hypothesis” that says (essentially) that “some of Jesus’ followers claimed he had been raised from the dead because they witnessed, via their ordinary faculties of eyesight, a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus after his death”.
So, that’s a Hypothesis.
There’s lots of Hypotheses that give other explanations for the advent of that claim. As I’m sure you know, the Traditional Christian Hypothesis is the only one that explains the advent of the claim that “Jesus was raised from the dead” on the basis of people having seen, with their normal eyesight, a “living-again Jesus”.
Now, some other Hypotheses say that people “saw”, in a “mystical-vision” sense, something they BELIEVED was a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus, but, they were mistaken.
Some other Hypotheses (usually proffered by “spiritual” people) say Jesus was indeed “seen” in bonafide “divine visions”, and that’s all that the original claimants ever said.
We could go down a very-long list of such Hypotheses, but I think the one that “works best” is that one that says some people saw, with their normal eyesight, a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus (after his death, of course).
I don’t know anything about “proving” something from ancient history. “Proofs” are for mathematics, not ancient history.
All we have is a bunch of Hypothesis concerning the advent of the claim that “Jesus was raised from the dead” – a claim which no historian in his right mind (and, even including Richard Carrier, who I personally doubt is in his right mind) doubts went into circulation in the early first century.
It just so happens that the Hypothesis I think “works best” happens to be the oldest one on record.
My question to you: What are you asking me for “proof” of anything for? We’re talking about Hypotheses here. If you want to Hypothesize that “Jesus was an alien in an exosuit” (a la “Men in Black”), I’d say “go for it”.
But in the end, it all gets down to what’s “Most Probable”. (And, here’s a hint: an alien-in-an-exosuit is probably not going to be considered “Most Probable” by anyone who is remotely serious about ancient history).
LikeLike
Ok, very good. So you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus because you believe it is the most probable explanation for the appearance/development of the Resurrection Belief in the first century.
Why, in your opinion, is an appearance of a back from the dead (brain dead) body more probable than a false sighting, illusion, hallucination, vivid dream, or some combination of some or all of these causes?
LikeLike
Well, to put it as clearly as I can:
I think actually seeing, with the ordinary eyesight, a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus is far, far more likely to result in a claim that “Jesus was raised from the dead” than are hallucinations or illusions.
Now, HOW a dead Jesus could be brought to a state of being a corporeally-existent, living-again person is another matter altogether.
One could say “it’s a miracle”, or, one could say “it’s a phenomenon that science can’t explain … yet” (making sure to tack on “yet” as to exude confidence that someday, science will figure it out).
But, yes, quite clearly, I believe that someone seeing “the real thing” (a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus) is, in and of itself, more likely to result in a claim of “Jesus, raised from the dead” than are hallucinations, illusions, etc.
I mean – if I SAW an albino bison, I’d be far more likely to believe there are such things than if I just saw a PICTURE of one, because pictures (photos) can be photoshopped.
So, it’s in that same sense that I say I think actually seeing (with the eyes) a “bodily-resurrected Jesus” is the more likely thing to result in a “resurrection claim” than hallucinations, etc.
But, again, HOW that “bodily resurrection” happened is another matter altogether.
LikeLike
So, if I’m understanding you, you are saying that the most likely cause for someone to come to the conclusion that they have seen a resurrected body is that they actually did see a resurrected body. In other words, it is highly improbable that someone would come to the conclusion of having seen a resurrected body if they had not actually seen a resurrected body.
I just don’t buy that. I believe that there is massive evidence that human beings are capable of coming up with the most bizzare beliefs based on zero evidence. I believe the most probable origin of the Resurrection Belief is a false sighting, an illusion, a vivid dream, an hallucination, or mass hysteria. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
LikeLike
re: ” In other words, it is highly improbable that someone would come to the conclusion of having seen a resurrected body if they had not actually seen a resurrected body.”
Now, c’mon, Gary, now, don’t do that. I didn’t say that at all.
I said I think it’s MORE likely that seeing a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus with the ordinary eyesight would result in a claim of “Jesus was raised from the dead” than are hallucinations or illusions.
I never said it’s “highly improbable” at all that someone might claim “Jesus was raised from the dead” based on hallucinations or illusions. I just think it’s LESS probable that they would do so in those cases than if they had seen, with their ordinary eyesight, a living-again Jesus.
re: “I believe the most probable origin of the Resurrection Belief is a false sighting, an illusion, a vivid dream, an hallucination, or mass hysteria. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.”
OK, so, you think “fake stuff” is more convincing than “real stuff”.
Sure, we can agree to disagree on that. That’ll work.
LikeLike
Now I see what you are saying. I think.
Sure, seeing an actual resurrected body is going to be the most convincing evidence that a resurrection has occurred. I agree.
But since even Christians will admit that resurrections are very rare events, an alleged resurrection is more probably due to human misperception than a true resurrection, in my opinion.
FYI: I find conversations with you much more “mature” than with Joel. I do believe you are a true truth seeker. I cannot say the same for Joel.
LikeLike
re: “Sure, seeing an actual resurrected body is going to be the most convincing evidence that a resurrection has occurred. I agree. But since even Christians will admit that resurrections are very rare events, an alleged resurrection is more probably due to human misperception than a true resurrection, in my opinion.”
Yep, this is the point where it always gets down to the “How” of the thing.
I did a lot of work, going through case studies (etc) in the NIMH database and PubMed database, and despite following every possible link I could find, I never found any instance reported where someone – even a person with a bonafide mental illness (such as schizophrenia) – ever claimed that a dead person whom they had “seen” had left the grave and was “living again” somewhere on the planet. Of course, i’m not a professional researcher. But, those that ARE professional researchers, and/or who have research staffs – guys like Ehrman and Ludemann and Dale Allison – could never find any such instances either. If any one of them could have, I can (virtually) guarantee that they would have said so. Allison researched this very specific topic, in fact. (ie, whether hallucinations ever lead to someone claiming a dead person has come back to life and left the grave), and he said very specifically that hallucinations never lead to such beliefs, and never lead to such claims.
So, there’s that. (And, I’m “just reporting”, that’s all). If I were to make a point of this, it would be simply to say that apparently, “hallucinations becoming resurrection claims” are about as rare as people who knew a deceased person making a claim that the deceased person had come back to life and left the grave by a “miraculous intervention”.
Illusions of the “classic” kind – ie, Marian illusions – invariably work only when there is already an “expectation” of something happening. In other words, there already has to be a belief that Mary (for example) was “assumed into heaven”, and can appear to people. The first Marian appartition didn’t happen until the 16th century – long, long after “Marian adoration” had become dogmatic in the Catholic Church. The Portuguese kid who had the apparition already believed that Mary had been assumed into heaven, and that it was possible that she might appear, just like it was possible that, say, an angel or a Saint would appear. So when something happened, involving a woman carrying a banby, the kid reported it as having seen the Virgin. And this, of course, opened the floodgates.
But, the point being that there had to be that “possibility” that Mary, who had been assumed into heaven, might appear back on earth. When Jesus died, there is no reason to think that for his disciples, there formed some “possibility” that he had been “raised from the dead”, and therefore, might be “seen”. Now, as you know, there were a couple of instances in which a dead person was brought back to life, but, in those instances, it was always through a “prophet” like Elisha – and the point of the story was always a confirmation that “God works through this prophet”. So, if Jesus’ resurrection had been the result of some Prophet going to Jesus’ tomb and, probably, “laying hand” on Jesus, bringing him back to life, then, it would be that particular Prophet, not Jesus, that was the Main Player in the drama. But, as you also know, that wasn’t the story. Jesus was raised from the dead by a direct act of God Himself (as the story goes). And there was nothing in those disciples “religious background” that would have ever caused them to think such a thing would happen. They were claiming something that was totally at odds with Pharisaic beliefs about “resurrection at the Last Day” – a day far away, at The End of the World As We Know It.
So, what I’m saying is that I really balk on the “Marian-apparition”-type “illusion”. There can be no doubt that “Marian apparitions” are consistent with Catholic beliefs about Mary. But, the resurrection of Jesus has no consistency whatsoever with Jewish beliefs about resurrection. Claiming the resurrection of Jesus totally flies in the face of the “religious background” of Judaism, whereas Marinan apparitions go hand-in-hand with Catholic beliefs about Mary. An appearance of Mary could *easily* be seen as a real possibility, but the resurrection of Jesus was an absurdity.
Now, you’ve often mentioned the “bright lights” thing (for which I’ve often chided you), BUT, let’s take that seriously for a moment. That Hypothesis says, effectively, that the disciples saw something they effectively took as a “sign” that Jesus had been raised from the dead. BUT – that’s a different Hypothesis. It says the disciples “story” was never that they saw a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus. Their *story* was that they had seen “marvelous light”, and somehow “knew”, as if by “divine revelation”, that Jesus had been raised from the dead. And, in and of itself, it’s a good Hypothesis. But, it’s also entirely speculative. We don’t have any information whatsoever that would indicate that there were people in the first century that began claiming “Jesus was raised from the dead” on the basis of seeing “wonderous lights”. Now – I’m NOT saying “it couldn’t have happened”. I’m just saying that it’s getting into the realm of Richard Carriers “Outer Space Jesus” – meaning – there’s just nothing anywhere in the historical record that ever says there was a “cult” that held such beliefs. SO – what I’m getting at here is, once again, a “probability” thing: Is it MORE PROBABLE that there was a cult who saw bright lights, and originated the claim of “Jesus, raised from the dead”, or is it MORE PROBABLE that the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead originated from a cult that believed they had seen the risen Jesus? I personally think it’s more probable that the claim originated in a cult that believed they had seen the risen Jesus (and, I suspect that’s what most historians would think, also, because I’ve never seen any of them that propose anything like “bright lights”. So – I’m just wanting to stress – this is nothing more than a “probability” thing, and not whether a thing was “possible” or not).
Now, I could go on, but I’m getting way too lengthy. I think you see the kinds of “issues” I have with things like hallucinations and illusions.
But, let’s just cut to the chase: It all BEGS the question of “miracles”….. right?
LikeLike
I never found any instance reported where someone – even a person with a bonafide mental illness (such as schizophrenia) – ever claimed that a dead person whom they had “seen” had left the grave and was “living again” somewhere on the planet.
That is an interesting point. However, we have no one in the Gospels or in Paul’s epistles claiming that Jesus was living again somewhere on earth. All the Jesus’ appearances were brief encounters. Only Acts claims that Jesus stuck around for a period of time (40 days), indicating to me that this is a theological invention. Why doesn’t Paul, Mark, or John mention this fact? Why doesn’t the Early Creed in First Corinthians 15 mention this fact? Hey, if you wanted to provide good evidence that Jesus was alive again after his public execution, here is the best evidence: “He lived with his disciples for 40 days! Dozens if not hundreds of people lived with him 24/7 for 40 days! Ghosts don’t live with people! Ghosts don’t eat food, sleep, and use the toilet! Jesus did all that for forty days!” Nope. Paul never says that.
So I will bet that all Jesus’ “appearances” involved brief events. He popped in and then quickly popped out of view. So were these events real physical appearances of a once dead body or were they illusions, vivid dreams, false sightings (mistaken identity), or hysteria? My bet is with the latter options.
LikeLike
…apparently, “hallucinations becoming resurrection claims” are about as rare as people who knew a deceased person making a claim that the deceased person had come back to life and left the grave by a “miraculous intervention”.
I agree. However, these claims occurred in the only culture on the planet that believed in bodily resurrection at that time. So it was a novel concept but not an unheard of concept. It was a novel twist to an established Jewish belief. So why didn’t people make this claim after Jesus? I don’t know but one possibility is this: Jews would not make this assertion since it would identify them as “Christian”, since only Christians believed that individual people could rise from the dead prior to the general resurrection of all the dead. Secondly, Christians would not make this claim as it would be seen as blatant blasphemy. A Christian believes that further resurrections will only occur at the Second Coming. So both Jews and Christians are desentivized from making this claim.
What about “pagans”? Pagans thought bodily resurrection was a disgusting, vulgar (low class) concept. So they wouldn’t make this claim either.
LikeLike
Illusions of the “classic” kind – ie, Marian illusions – invariably work only when there is already an “expectation” of something happening. In other words, there already has to be a belief that Mary (for example) was “assumed into heaven”, and can appear to people.
But there had to be a first (alleged) Marian apparition. If Mary lived with John the Apostle after Jesus’ death, and John lived to old age to write the Book of Revelation (as Christians claim), then why doesn’t John mention the appearances of the Mother of God, to him, in the Book of Revelation? My goodness, if the good woman is going to make an appearance, she would make it to the man who housed her, fed her, and protected her. I digress… Marian apparitions obviously were not happening in the lifetimes of any of the authors of the New Testament because none of them mention receiving an appearance from the Mother of God. So I will bet marian apparitions didn’t start until several hundreds of years after Jesus’ death so no one was expecting Jesus’ mother to appear to them…but lo and behold someone, at some point in time, was the first to make such a claim. And it would have been a never heard of before, very extraordinary claim. How many times did dead people (allegedly) appear to people in the Old Testament? Once? Samuel? So the first Marian apparition would have been a very novel concept in Christianity, just as Jesus resurrection appearance was a novel concept in Judaism. But the thing is: Weird, novel things happen or at least some humans claim that have happened. That is a known fact.
LikeLike
It says the disciples “story” was never that they saw a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus. Their story was that they had seen “marvelous light”, and somehow “knew”, as if by “divine revelation”, that Jesus had been raised from the dead. And, in and of itself, it’s a good Hypothesis. But, it’s also entirely speculative. We don’t have any information whatsoever that would indicate that there were people in the first century that began claiming “Jesus was raised from the dead” on the basis of seeing “wonderous lights”.
Jews were familiar with divine appearances in the form of bright lights: Moses “saw” God in the burning bush. All of Israel saw God in the pillars of fire that burned by night as the camped on the Red Sea. So seeing bright lights and thinking it is the appearance of a divine being was part and parcel of first century Jewish theology. So I have no problem suggesting that some of Jesus’ disciples saw a bright light and believed it to be an appearance of Jesus. Whether or not they believed it was an appearance of a “resurrected” Jesus or some other divine form of Jesus we will never know because we have not one single undisputed detailed eyewitness account of anyone claiming to see Jesus in any form after his public execution.
LikeLike
re: “Whether or not they believed it was an appearance of a “resurrected” Jesus or some other divine form of Jesus we will never know because we have not one undisputed detailed eyewitness account of anyone seeing Jesus after his public execution.”
I’m OK with that. All we have, after all, are a variety of Hypotheses about the origin of a claim.
You’re hypothesizing that the disciples saw some bright lights. Somebody else is going to hypothesize that the disciples saw an “hallucinatory Jesus”. Somebody else is going to hypothesize that there was never a “real Jesus” at all, and the way the claim that “Jesus was raised from the dead” came about was that there were a bunch of kids telling stories about a “legendary Jesus”, and one of them said “ooohhh… I know what happened after he died… He came back from the dead to haunt his enemies!”
I feel absolutely certain that ANY of those options is, for you, a better option than a bodily resurrection of Jesus, and it’s because of one thing, and one thing only: Your ONLY criteria is whether an option is “more probable than a miracle”, and for you (and the very-average person) is that “anything is more probable than a miracle”.
The fact of the matter is that even if we had a dozen signed testimonies of guys who witnessed the corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus, you wouldn’t believe it, because it would have required a miracle, and, you just don’t believe miracles are possible.
In other words, you have an a priori truth you hold to: miracles can’t and don’t happen.
But, that’s fine with me. I’ve been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Thing is, I didn’t stay there for long. *shrug*. But, that’s another story.
LikeLike
So why do you believe that a once in history resurrection, a miracle, is more probable than the other, nonmiraculous options I previously mentioned?
LikeLike
re: “So why do you believe that a once in history resurrection, a miracle, is more probable than the other, nonmiraculous, options I previously mentioned?”
I don’t – because I think it’s utterly ludicrous to think that the “probability” of a miracle can possibly be determined.
LikeLike
Hmm. So if someone makes a very unusual claim, which no one before or since has made, it is more probable to be true than not?
LikeLike
re: “Hmm. So if someone makes a very unusual claim, which no one before or since has made, it is more probable to be true than not?”
Seriously, Gary, have I ever once presented myself as some kind of expert on how to calculate the probability of a claim being true or false?
What are you even asking me that question for?
LikeLike
I’m trying to understand why you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I thought I understood your reasoning but it is obvious I do not. I think we should stop now before the tone of our conversation deteriorates.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, it’s OK. I’m very glad you said that. We’re OK.
I’ve heard a lot of hypotheses about “what prompted the earliest resurrection claimants to make their claim”.
Some of them are really pretty good, some of them are pretty random. One which I made up once was “Jesus was really an alien in an exosuit (a la “Men in Black”), and the exosuit-Jesus got crucified (which didn’t harm the alien inside – he just turned the power off so it looked like the exosuit died). Then, they put the exosuit Jesus into a tomb, and after a short while, the alien turned the power back on, got out of the tomb, presented himself to his disciples, and they all said “wow, he’s been raised from the dead”. SO – the thing that prompted them to make the “resurrection claim” was that they’d seen the exosuit-Jesus “alive again”, and they just told other people. (Of course, they didn’t know “Jesus” was an alien in an exosuit).
This hypothesis is “more probable than a miracle”, according to the very-average interweb beavis-and-butthead-style Skeptic. But, the problem is that it’s not more probable than OTHER non-miracle-requiring hypothesis.
When it all boils down, the most persuasive hypothesis are invariably those that posit a “real Jesus” (ie, an “historical Jesus”) who really died by crucifixion, and who was said, for reasons X, Y, or Z to have been raised from the dead.
Of THOSE most-likely hypothesis, one of them says “the thing that prompted the earliest resurrection claimants to say ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ is that they saw, with their ordinary eyesight, a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus, so they said so”.
To me, that just sounds best. It has the least “moving parts”. It doesn’t require any “special expections” to be made in a plain reading of Paul’s letters. (And, as you know, I don’t use the Gospels, because there is very obviously no agreement whatsoever among all parties concerned that they’re even close to being “historically reliable” – and besides – the claim itself did not originate in the Gospels).
The problem, though, is that one has to be willing to accept that very strange things can happen in this universe in order to buy into this particular hypothesis. But, then, that’s exactly what the hypothesis is saying “the very strange and unexpected thing of a dead person being. restored to life happened”. The very NATURE of the claim itself is enough to make someone say “wow, it’s a miracle”.
That’s problematic for some people. I suppose it should be problematic for me, too, but I don’t believe, a priori, that “miracles” can be ruled out entirely. Of course, that’s because I realize that this universe we live in began with a Big Bang, and NOBODY knows, or can ever know, what preceded the Big Bang. It was either a case that the universe (or, it’s base components) have existed for eternity (and, nobody knows how that would have happened), or, there was (what we now call) a Creator God that brought the universe into being.
Me? I think the latter explanation is the better. The former explanation actually just pushes the question back another step, but, the question of “where did all these base components that formed our universe come from” still exists – and it’s a question of Nature, so, there ought to be a Natural explanation. But, there isn’t one. At least, not as far as I know.
So, in my mind, if there was a Creator God behind the universe, then there is no protection against that Creator God of interacting with his creation. But, whether he does or not is entirely up to him.
I think it’s entirely possible that this Creator God who chose to create this universe also chose to do one other thing — the (effective) re-creation of a human life.
My SECOND favorite hypothesis is that the universe ALWAYS acts in precisely the same fashion we’ve always observed. And therefore, we can be quite comfortable in saying “miracles are impossible”. Thus, the most likely thing to have happened that prompted the disciples to say “Jesus was raised from the dead” was that they really didn’t mean it “literally”. They meant “Jesus will live forever in our hearts”.
The problem I have with this second-favorite hypothesis is that NOBODY KNOWS that the universe ALWAYS acts in precisely the same fashion we’ve always observed, because “we”, the observers, haven’t ourselves been around “always”. We’ve been here observing the universe for a tiny fraction of the time it has existed. Heck, we don’t even know how the universe works BEYOND our “range of observation”; we cannot know what goes on at the farthest reaches of the universe, because we can’t get there to collect data, any more than we can go back in time, before the Big Bang, to collect data. So, this view is based on “faith” that “the universe has always existed, and always behaves in precisely the same way”, but, I’m weak in the faith department. That’s why I like the “God” option.
LikeLike
I understand the preference of believing in an intelligent creator over a natural explanation for the origin of the matter involved in the Big Bang. On this issue, I prefer to sit on the sidelines. I am an agnostic when it comes to the origin of the universe. I will wait until scientists figure it out, if they ever do. The bigger question is the identity of a creator. Do you believe that Jesus was the creator? Yahweh? If so, why?
Of THOSE most-likely hypothesis, one of them says “the thing that prompted the earliest resurrection claimants to say ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ is that they saw, with their ordinary eyesight, a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus, so they said so”.
Don’t be insulted but I don’t understand your logic here. If a group of people sincerely claimed that Sasquatch exists, the best evidence for me to believe in the existence of Sasquatch is for me to literally see Sasquatch with my own two eyes. That is a given. So I don’t understand why you are using this argument.
LikeLike
re: “Do you believe that Jesus was the creator? Yahweh? If so, why?”
Nope. I don’t.
re:
Me: “Of THOSE most-likely hypothesis, one of them says “the thing that prompted the earliest resurrection claimants to say ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ is that they saw, with their ordinary eyesight, a corporeally-existent, living-again Jesus, so they said so”.”
You: “So I don’t understand why you are using this argument.”
I’m not. It’s not an argument. It’s an hypothesis – which is, by definition, an explanation.
LikeLike
I still don’t understand the reason why YOU believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
I guess we will have to leave it there.
LikeLike
It merely illustrates that something prompted your belief [deleted insults] you still refuse to give details concerning why you consider yourself a Christian.
the more you post your integrity is also highly suspect.
In fact one feels obliged to ask why on earth you continue to post [deleted personal insult] rather than simply set up a site of your own and invite fellow believers to participate in your delusion?
LikeLike
You know what? I don’t quite “get” this:
“Assumption. Please provide ONE undisputed eyewitness statement of anyone explicitly claiming to have seen the resurrected, walking, talking body of Jesus.”
What do I need to provide any eyewitness statements of anything at all????
All I said was that “The CLAIM that Jesus was “raised from the dead” was a claim about someone known personally by those who made it.“
sheesh….
LikeLike
Ok. I see your point. Let me rephrase:
How do we know that people who knew Jesus were claiming he was raised from the dead?
LikeLike
@aussie
Pay attention!
By the way, how’s the book coming along ?
LikeLike
I like your thinking, except, you never give us the reason why you, a non-eyewitness to the resurrection, believe it occurred in the first century. Without the Gospels as eyewitness sources, you are correct, we only have a small group of people in first century Palestine claiming that their executed leader had returned from the dead as a being with divine (supernatural) powers. Why would anyone believe such a claim unless he or she had seen this body with their own two eyes??
LikeLike
Well, the reason I believe it happened in the first century is PARTLY because there are no records at all of the CLAIM that “Jesus was raised from the dead” UNTIL the first century (more specifically, the mid-first-century).
However, in those mid-first-century documents, the author’s own history can be traced back to the early first century, when the author himself came to believe Jesus had been raised from the dead, and that was during the tenure of Pontius Pilate (26CE to 36CE). Then, there are a couple of historical records that both put the crucifixion of Jesus during the tenure of Pontius Pilate.
Now, anyone can say “yeh, but NONE of these writings are ‘real'” (for example), and that’s fine with me. All we can deal with in ancient history are “probablilities”, and I think (as do the vast majority of historians) that it’s a lot more probable that Jesus existed and died sometime during the tenure of Pontius Pilate than I think it probable that everybody was just writing fake stories – including ancient historians.
Another part of my “reasoning” on this: There are no writings in which anyone says “there was never a person named Jesus who got crucified and was said to have been raised from the dead” that were from (at least) the first though fifth centuries. Back then, there was nobody denying that Jesus existed. Not even guys like Celsus. The question of Jesus’ existence, as best I can make out, didn’t come up until The Enlightenment. But, there’s no reason to think that, back then, anyone was even questioning his existence.
So, for me (and for the overwhelming majority of historians), it’s just more probable that there was a Jesus who was crucified and said to have been raised from the dead in the early first century than it’s probable that there wasn’t. *shrug*
LikeLike
All we can deal with in ancient history are “probabilities”, and I think (as do the vast majority of historians) that it’s a lot more probable that Jesus existed and died sometime during the tenure of Pontius Pilate than I think it probable that everybody was just writing fake stories – including ancient historians.
I agree with you.
LikeLike
Gary – BTW – I’d LOVE to keep the conversation going, but, I really can’t unless you unblock my “usual connection”. (I won’t have a connection available after this, except my home connection which you’ve blocked).
LikeLike
Ok. But please refrain from personal insults.
LikeLike
Aussie,
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Ultimately, the very reason why you are convinced that Jesus physically rose from the dead is because that claim has been preserved in the NT writings, the Canonical Gospels included. Without them, there would be no claim. So, of course your conviction that Jesus rose from the dead has SOMETHING to do with the Gospels.
The Canonical Gospels are first century texts dated 35-60 years after the events in Jesus’ life. They are, in fact, written in the genre of ancient historical biographies. Although there is clearly literary artistry employed in the telling of the historical ministry, dead, and resurrection of Jesus, they clearly are testifying to history. That has been my point to Gary and Ark this entire time. It is no use going through every single story and asking, “Is it history or fiction?” That’s a wrong and ignorant question to ask. They testify that the historical Jesus really did heal people, resurrect, etc. That is what I mean by “historically reliable.” A responsible person can’t go any further than that.
My “job” as a Christian is to understand what the Gospels are testifying to and teaching about Christ. That’s it. I don’t obsess over “proving” Jesus walked on water. I DO know that that scene is alluding to a number of OT stories in an attempt to explain who Jesus is, and that is the point. I can’t “prove” he walked on water. But if someone pushes me, I’ll say, “If he resurrected from the dead, then anything is possible.” But it wouldn’t destroy my faith if that scene turned out to be “fictionalized.”
Gary and Ark, though, are so obsessed with “proving” the Gospels are historically unreliable, that they practice an absurd amount of hyper-skepticism and try to draw absurd parallels between the Gospels and…the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Gnostic Gospels, etc. It just strikes me as ludicrous.
LikeLike
That has been my point to Gary and Ark this entire time. It is no use going through every single story and asking, “Is it history or fiction?” That’s a wrong and ignorant question to ask. They testify that the historical Jesus really did heal people, resurrect, etc. That is what I mean by “historically reliable.” A responsible person can’t go any further than that.
Incorrect. The Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. This genre of ancient literature allowed for embellishments to the biography of an historical figure as long as the embellished stories remained true to the figure’s character. That guideline gave these authors a lot of leeway. It did not require that the author KNEW that Jesus performed miracles and healings, only that the author perpetuated Jesus’ reputation as a miracle worker and healer. So if the author fabricated a story that Jesus healed a blind man by putting a mixture of mud and spit in his eyes, that was perfectly acceptable as long as Jesus had a reputation as a great healer. Do you see the difference? The author was not required to verify that Jesus healed someone of blindness. In fact, the author was not required to verify that Jesus had healed anyone!
So the question is: should modern people believe that Jesus healed lepers, the blind, the lame, and raised people from the dead, including himself, based on a first century Greco-Roman biography?
Answer: No! The biography in question is evidence of Jesus’ reputation as a miracle worker and healer. It is NOT good evidence that Jesus actually performed supernatural acts and healings.
LikeLike
Thank you for illustrating my point as to why I don’t find you credible or logical. Like I said before, you are not serious.
You’d be much better off just saying, “Hey, I don’t buy it,” and moving on with your life. Instead, you go out of your way to just make ludicrous comparisons and claims.
LikeLike
No. My statement is the position of every university educated non-Christian on the planet regarding the the Resurrection Story, including non-Christian NT scholars like Gerd Luedemann and Bart Ehrman. You don’t like to acknowledge that fact but it is a fact.
The Gospels are evidence that some first century people believed Jesus existed, that he was a miracle worker and healer, that he was crucified by the Romans, and that after his death some of his followers came to believe that he appeared to them in some fashion. That is it. Claiming that the Gospels are historically accurate accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry is the claim of an ignoramus, a fundamentalist, or a liar. Which are you, Joel?
LikeLike
You seem to parrot everything Bart Ehrman says–it’s almost like he’s your high priest. Lol…
Every single ancient text boils down to, “Some ancient people believed X, Y, and Z happened, but you can’t ‘prove’ any of it, really!”
Sorry, you’re just disingenuous.
LikeLike
No, you are either a liar, fundamentalist, or fool. Which is it?
No one but idiots, fundamentalists, and liars believe that the Gospels are a historically accurate depiction of the actual events in Jesus’ life. I’m not going to debate you on this matter further.
LikeLike
Of course, you’re not going to debate anymore. Because you’ve been shown to be the complete fraud you are. All you have are asinine claims and petty name-calling.
LikeLike
But since you revere Ehrman so much….here’s something. Vespasian was credited with certain healings that are strikingly similar to Christ’s healing. Look what Ehrman says. It is most likely that Tacitus was basically copying the Jesus’ miracle and attributing them to Vespasian.
What does that tell you? By 66 AD these stories about Jesus’ healings were significant enough for Roman historians to acknowledge them and attribute them for their own Imperial propaganda.
Still, does that mean that since we can’t “prove” Vespasian healed these people–that perhaps the stories were “plagiarized” from the Christians–that nothing in Tacitus’ history about Vespasian is historically reliable? Of course not. No reasonable person would claim such a thing.
But that is EXACTLY what you’re claiming about Jesus and the Gospels.
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-miracles-of-the-emperor-vespasian-a-platinum-post-by-ryan-fleming/
LikeLike
I DO know that that scene is alluding to a number of OT stories in an attempt to explain who Jesus is, and that is the point. I can’t “prove” he walked on water. But if someone pushes me, I’ll say, “If he resurrected from the dead, then anything is possible.” But it wouldn’t destroy my faith if that scene turned out to be “fictionalized.”
Great. So we are getting somewhere. You admit that it is possible that the story of Jesus walking on water may be an allegory (alluding to OT stories); a theological tale, not an actual historical event. Great. That is all I wanted to hear, Joel. And I agree with you. The author may have never intended for his readers to believe that Jesus actually walked on water. But what your statement really says is this: As long as the story of Jesus’ revivification from the dead is historical, it doesn’t matter if all the other stories in the Gospels are allegorical (fiction).
But the problem with that is: If all the other stories are potentially allegories (fiction) then why couldn’t the Empty Tomb Story or the Appearance Stories told in Matthew, Luke, and John be allegories? And if these stories are allegories, what good evidence is there that a once-in-history resurrection really did take place in the first century??
LikeLike
“Allegory” is not “allusion”–get your terms right.
My gosh, you sound like Ken Ham sometimes: “If Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical, then who is to say the resurrection isn’t historical?”
I’ve been over this before, countless times: GENRE RECOGNITION, BASIC READING COMPETENCY.
Nowhere in the NT does anyone say, “If Jesus didn’t walk on water, your faith is useless.” But the insistent claims of the historicity of the resurrection are everywhere.
Again, you don’t believe Jesus rose again–fine. Stop making illogical and ridiculous arguments where you say there is no difference between the Canonical Gospels and the gnostic Gospels, or there is no difference between the walking on water account and the resurrection account.
It is so blindingly disingenuous.
LikeLike
re: “Ultimately, the very reason why you are convinced that Jesus physically rose from the dead is because that claim has been preserved in the NT writings, the Canonical Gospels included.”
No, that’s totally incorrect. The fact that the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead was preserved in writing is NOT AT ALL the REASON I’m convinced that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. The preservation of that claim is the reason I know about the claim. But the fact that somebody preserved those writings doesn’t convince me at all that the claim was true.
After Jesus died and was buried, and after the risen Jesus was seen by Peter and The Twelve, those individuals certainly had no need of anything in writing to tell them “it’s true”. But, other people? One’s that didn’t see the risen Jesus? All they had to go on was the testimonies of Peter and The Twelve.
And, that’s all we’ve got today. (Well, except, over time, there were a few additions to the list of witnesses: James, “the 500”, and Paul).
It’s *those testimonies* – that’s all that ANYONE (aside from the testifiers) had to go on. Putting stuff in writing doesn’t somehow make it “more true”.
If YOU were in a small group back in the first century, and you had a half-dozen guys (maybe somebody named Peter, and a few others), and each of them testified “I saw the bodily-raised-from-the-dead Jesus myself, with my own eyes”, then how would YOU determine whether what they were saying was true or not? THAT’S the only question.
But, just because some books were written 35 years (and more) after the purported event doesn’t “prove” anything at all.
The only question that matters is “how do YOU know these men that are testifying today in front of this small first-century crowd are telling the truth?”
I find the writings of Paul of great interest because we can (at least) get an idea of “when” the resurrection claim started into circulation, and it’s from Paul that we first learn that the resurrection claim was based on the testimony of some who had seen the risen Jesus.
But – that just reinforces my point: What we have is a claim of a resurrection, based on testimonies of some guys who said they had seen the risen Jesus. And again – it leads to the question: How do YOU, upon hearing those testimonies, determine whether those testifiers are telling the truth?
Personally, I find The Gospels to be massive distractions. For us Christians, they are great “in-house” documents to have – great documents for them that ALREADY believe – but, they are clearly nothing that anyone besides Christians take as “historical accounts”.
So, that’s why I never, ever use The Gospels when talking about “why I believe (or really, why I’m convinced) that Jesus was raised from the dead”. They add nothing (because those writings themselves are NOT testimonies), and all that ever happens in bringing them into the picture is a bunch of bunnytrailing about those books themselves — none of which ever gets closer to answering the question: Why do YOU believe the testimonies of these men standing here who say they saw the bodily-raised-from-the-dead Jesus?
But… that’s just me. 🙂
LikeLike
You would never have known that there even was a claim of Jesus’ resurrection in the first place, if not for the Gospels. They are the testimonies to that historical fact, without which you would never have known about it.
Upon what are you basing your belief of Jesus’ resurrection? What is it that convinces you he was raised from the dead?
LikeLike
This conversation should get very interesting…if “Aussiestockman” chooses to respond. I’m popping pop corn and inviting friends…
LikeLike
I’m honestly interested in why he believes Jesus rose from the dead.
LikeLike
As are we.
@Joel.
On the same topic topic, why do you believe?
LikeLike
We have been asking the same question for years…
LikeLike
Gary, it isn’t one singular thing. One of those things is that I am convinced the Gospels–the entire NT for that matter–is historically reliable.
Another thing is that I think the claims and worldview of Christianity is more consistent and makes more sense than any other religion, and certainly more than atheism.
Another thing is my personal experience. Unlike you, I am not a positivist. I do not think the material world constitutes all of reality. I believe there is a spiritual component–the biggest flaw of atheism is its failure to acknowledge that. There are hosts of things that cannot be explained by a completely materialistic worldview. Even if I wasn’t a Christian, I still wouldn’t be an atheist, because I honestly find atheism to be unintelligent and stupid.
LikeLike
I didn’t ask you the question, Ark did, but I will respond.
It is certainly your right to believe that the Gospels/entire New Testament is historically reliable but to claim that this is the consensus position of historians is simply not true. But I’m not going to beat that dead horse anymore.
I can understand why someone would believe that belief in a Creator is more rational than belief in “something from nothingness”. The evidence is overwhelming that our universe is fine tuned. Fine tuning suggests a “tuner”. So I get it. What I don’t get is believing that a human being from the first century is that “tuner”.
Question: how reliable are personal experiences/subjective feelings in determining universal truth claims? Research shows they are very unreliable. That doesn’t mean that intuition and experience have no role in human knowledge. Intuition and experience are vital to our survival. But if one wants to use their personal experiences, feelings, and perceptions to declare: “The spirt of Jesus of Nazareth is God the Creator and if anyone on the planet chooses to become a believer in Jesus, Jesus will “dwell within you” and impart to you, in an inaudible voice, secret wisdom and life guidance” that is just not rational. More evidence is required, at least for most educated people who were not raised (indoctrinated/brainwashed) in the Christian belief system.
LikeLike
Then why do you put your faith in your own personal experiences/subjective feelings? Ehrman is giving his “take” and you readily swallow almost everything he says. But you’re not a NT expert–why you do accept what he says and not what NT Wright says? It’s boils down to your own personal, subjective biases. And for some reason, you have convinced yourself that YOU are the one being objective, because you don’t buy into all that “religious mumbo jumbo.” Just look at your last sentence. You can’t even see just how ridiculous you sound.
But the very way you describe/depict the Christian faith is childish and disingenuous, and when I try to explain that things are more complicated than you try to portray, you get upset. You consistently twist and distort the things I say (and apparently what Aussie says as well)–why? Because you are coming at things with an extremely biased and subjective slant that amount to a rigid ideological stance.
Christianity isn’t about trying to “prove” something like a theorem. Christianity claims there is a very real, very personal God, who has entered into human experience, and that human beings can relate to Him in a personal way. That DEMANDS acknowledgement of personal experiences and feelings. When you cut that out completely, you cut out what it means to be a person. You have reduced everything to “facts” alone. How would a marital relationship fare if the only thing that counted were “objective facts”? It wouldn’t.
Your problem, Gary, amounts to you cutting off and denying the validity of the one thing that makes human beings unique–our personhood and ability to actually relate at a deeper level than “mere facts” or “animal instincts.” You’re not going to find evidence for God’s existence when you fundamentally deny personhood.
LikeLike
Ok. Interesting points.
Are you really going to compare your relationship with Jesus with my relationship with my wife?? First, I have access to a lot of objective evidence of my relationship with my wife. I see her, hear hear, and can touch her. I have interacted with her objectively through my senses on a daily basis for 18 years. You have none of that in your alleged relationship with Jesus. EVERYTHING is subjective.
I left Christianity kicking and screaming. I was depressed for weeks. It was a very traumatic experience. But I left due to evidence, not my feelings. And my decision to leave is not based on Bart Ehrman’s books alone but on an extensive evaluation of the evidence, from both sides, which is what I encourage every person to do. Here is a list of the Christian and skeptic literature I have read over the last 10 years:
Please describe the circumstances of your conversion to Christianity and the age at which your conversion occurred.
LikeLike
Gary, your not my counselor or therapist. I’ll say there obviously is a personal/spiritual/experiential part to my becoming a Christian, but I’m not going to share it with you, anymore than you should share with me your most intimate aspects of your relationship with your wife.
I acknowledge that there is more to reality than just the material world; you don’t. That perhaps is why you were so depressed when you left Christianity. You knew, deep down, something wasn’t right in denying the fact that there is something more to reality than the material world.
The very fact that you are so doggedly emotional in trying to “deconvert” is telling. Why is that?
LikeLike
I’ll say there obviously is a personal/spiritual/experiential part to my becoming a Christian, but I’m not going to share it with you, anymore than you should share with me your most intimate aspects of your relationship with your wife.
Dear Reader: Is it rational to compare a relationship with a human spouse with whom you have interacted with your senses 24/7 for almost 20 years with the subjective perception of a relationship with the spirit of a man who died almost 20 centuries ago?
Decide for yourself.
LikeLike
Okay, Gary, please tell me about your most intimate moments with your wife. How can I know you really love her unless you share those intimate moments with me, in public? Lol…
LikeLike
Unhinged comment…
LikeLiked by 1 person
No more than your questions of the personal details of one’s coming to the faith.
LikeLike
@Joel
Lol!
You want intimate details of Gary and his missus because you think this is comparable to you coming to faith in Jesus of Nazareth?
My oh my!
The mind boggles.
perhaps there is a common thread, or at least one specific word in your disturbing and rather voyeuristic comment?
LikeLike
Your cluelessness and lack of self awareness is truly mind-boggling. You don’t get…anything.
LikeLike
@Joel.
Mister Anderson, you ask a married man to supply intimate details of his relationship with his wife and then assert I don’t get anything?
Seriously, what is there to “get”?
In any context that is most definitely on the creepy side.
I am sure there are plenty of specialist internet sites that cater for that type of deviant taste.
Or is this the sort of relationship you believe you have with your god man Jesus so you consider such a request perfectly acceptable?
LikeLike
Do you NOT GET it is SARCASM???
When you and Gary consistently demand that I tell you my “personal details” about my relationship with God and what led me to my conversion, that is a PERSONAL question. It is the equivalent of my asking for intimate details of someone’s marital relationship.
Are you really that bone-headed and stupid not to get it?
Coming to the Christian faith isn’t solely an intellectual thing. It is a relationship with a very real, and very personal God. And human beings are relational creatures. All that “subjective stuff” that you and Gary immediately dismiss is what makes human beings unique. And you base your relationships with EVERYONE on that “subjective stuff” because you are a human being. That is how you RELATE to people. And some relationships are so intimate and personal (like one’s relationship with one’s spouse, or one’s relationship with God), to demand a person tell you about those relationships is bizarre.
Your response is just par for the course for you. Gary’s response is telling: he mocks the idea that one views one’s relationship with God as if it were a real relationship with a real, personal God. YEP! THAT’S THE POINT. I believe God is real. You guys, though, mock that notion and go out of your way to dismiss the very thing that makes us unique as human beings in order to deny God’s existence.
LikeLike
You have zero evidence other than your subjective emotions that you have a personal relationship with the ghost of a first century peasant.
LikeLike
SMH…you are Ark are walking tautologies.
LikeLike
This is why before beginning any debate on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the skeptic should ask one question: Do you, at this very moment, believe you have a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus?
If the Christian says “yes” the skeptic should walk off the stage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right….a walking tautology. “I don’t believe in the existence of God, therefore I will dismiss anything that indicates the existence of God, because I don’t believe in the existence of God.”
“Personal feelings and experiences are completely subjective and can’t prove anything.” “Do you love your wife?” “Oh, that’s different.”
LikeLike
I freely acknowledge that objective evidence for a creator exists. What I do not acknowledge is that objective evidence for your personal relationship with the ghost of Jesus of Nazareth exists.
LikeLike
(A) Your feelings for your wife are not objective–they are, due to the fact that you are a human being relating to another human beings, SUBJECTIVE, and completely valid.
(B) “The ghost of Jesus of Nazareth”–that statement shows your complete ignorance in this entire thing. You don’t even grasp what the fundamental claim of Christianity is.
And that is why debating with you and Ark is like talking to a fence post.
LikeLike
I never claimed that my feelings for my wife are objective. What I claimed is that there is evidence for my relationship with my wife which is objective. Big difference. I do not need to prove that two geese love each other to know that they have a relationship.
LikeLike
That’s my point–they’re NOT objective. Relationships and relational feelings are ALWAYS subjective, but still nevertheless valid.
LikeLike
Nope. Relationships possess objective evidence. The feeling of being in love is subject. There is a difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you or do you not have a personal relationship with Jesus?
LikeLike
Of course. Because he rose from the dead and is alive. And you are in denial of EVERYTHING that even hints at the supernatural because who knows why?
And if you insist that the material world is all there is to reality, then how can you say there is “objective” evidence for God? Isn’t God beyond the material world? Or do you contradict yourself just for kicks?
LikeLike
“The ghost of Jesus of Nazareth”–that statement shows your complete ignorance in this entire thing. You don’t even grasp what the fundamental claim of Christianity is.
Which part of this statement is incorrect?
-Is Jesus the name of your god? If you are a Trinitarian Christian your answer must be yes.
-Was Jesus from Nazareth? Answer: that is what Christians claim.
-Do you worship Jesus’ body? Nope. Trinitarian Christianity claims Jesus body is in heaven, only his spirit is omnipresent.
-Do you worship Jesus’ spirit? Yes, according to Trinitarian Christianity.
The word “ghost” is a synonym for “spirit”. Look it up in a dictionary if you don’t believe me.
Therefore, my statement that you (and all other Trinitarian Christians) worship the ghost of Jesus of Nazareth and believe that he/it dwells within your body is a true statement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bye, Gary….you are hopeless.
LikeLike
“Bye, Gary” … Promises, promises.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One day I hope you will realize that the “relationship” you believe you have with a ghost living inside you is a delusion. You are only talking to yourself, Joel. No one else is inside you. It’s just you.
This delusion doesn’t make you crazy. It makes you human. Humans have always invented supernatural, invisible superheroes (gods) to feel secure in a dangerous, scary world. But you don’t need a superhero, Joel. All you need is you. Let go of your comforting but delusional superstitions and embrace the exhilaration of living without fear of invisible gods and other imaginary ghouls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ALSO…IF a creator exists (as you have acknowledged) then if He wanted to communicate and relate to human beings, HOW would you expect He do that? Perhaps through personal RELATIONSHIPS and EXPERIENCES?
LikeLike
You have no more evidence for the existence of your invisible BFF than a child has for his invisible imaginary friend. You both have warm fuzzy feelings and the subjective perception that your friend occasionally performs magic tricks for you.
That’s it.
I dare you to prove me wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The very fact you continue to use derogatory phrases like “invisible BFF” and “invisible imaginary friend” illustrates just how much of an ideologue who is ruled and driven by his own subjective feelings you really are.
You cannot claim to be a clear-headed, objective thinker when your go-to reaction and descriptions are always condescending and derogatory and belittling.
LikeLike
No, Joel. I am trying to help you see the silliness of your superstitions. Revivified corpses and still-small-voice-whispering ghosts do not exist any more than the invisible thread of the Emperor’s new tailors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have never asked you for personal details about your relationship with your god, Yahweh.
I HAVE asked what were the circumstances that led you to consider you were a sinner believing you need redemption via the blood of a first century human sacrifice.
This is so far removed from demanding intimate marital details from Gary that only a bone-headed individual would fail to recognize just how creepy and highly inappropriate such a demand is.
LikeLike
Joel is backed into a corner and getting desperate in his attempts to get out.
LikeLike
I am sure if he prays Yahweh will make him realize he owes you an apology.
LikeLike
@Joel.
To consider atheism “unintelligent and stupid” merely illustrates to most rational, normal individuals the level of indoctrination to which you have succumbed. This in turn appears to have blunted your ability to exercise genuine critical thinking in this regard, which is, in all probability. linked to your own level of personal credulity.
LikeLike
re: “You would never have known that there even was a claim of Jesus’ resurrection in the first place, if not for the Gospels.”
I most assuredly could have known there was a claim of Jesus’ resurrection, even without the Gospels. All someone had to do was keep Paul’s letters around.
The CLAIM that Jesus was raised from the dead is based entirely on someone testifying that they had SEEN the resurrected Jesus.
So, again – my question to you is this: If that’s all you were given – the testimony of a few people that each claimed they had seen the resurrected Jesus – what would convince you that those testifiers were telling the truth?
If you can’t answer that question, then I’d really have to ask you – “what is it that convinces you that Jesus was raised from the dead?” Because if you can’t give a rationale for why you believe what those testifiers said, then, why do you say you “believe” at all?
I don’t mean to sound “affrontive” in saying what I just said. But, underneath it all, what we’ve got is someone’s testimony about something they saw, and what they said they saw is an extremely “strange” thing. So – what would cause you to believe that testimony?
LikeLike
I believe I have asked you that very question, which you have side-stepped: Why do you believe Jesus resurrected from the dead? Are you saying it is because of Paul’s claim?
LikeLike
Joel, I’ve said repeatedly: The CLAIM that Jesus was raised from the dead is based on testimony. That can’t be “gotten around”, either in Paul’s writings or in The Gospels.
So, yes, I’ve “heard the testimony”: “Christ died for our sins… was buried…. was raised up on the third day… and was seen by Peter and The Twelve”. (oh, and later, by James, “the 500”, and by Paul).
“Jesus was raised from the dead” is what they said. And, I believe that testimony. Which means, I believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
If you want to know why I believe that testimony, that’s another story altogether. It’s not a testimony that everyone is going to believe. It’s a really, really STRANGE story that the testifiers were testifying of. People don’t routinely die, get buried, then a couple of days later, get out of the grave and drop by to visit their friends. But, that was the testimony. And, I came to believe that testimony. But, like I say, my reasons for believing “what those men said” are a different story.
Fortunately, Gary has given a hint: He said right here, in this thread, “seeing an actual resurrected body is going to be the most convincing evidence that a resurrection has occurred”, and he also said “Unless you are inferring that you have literally seen Jesus, your thinking on this issue is not rational” – the corollary which is “if you DID literally see Jesus, then it IS rational”.
Those statements are getting so very, very close to why I believe the testimonies of “those testifiers”.
But, I myself didn’t see anything at all. I “heard a testimony” (so to speak). And, I believed the testimony, which was “Jesus was raised from the dead”. In fact, the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that the testimony was true.
Do you really have a different story?
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but that is kind of an obscure answer. What do you mean by, “I ‘heard a testimony (so to speak)'”? What convinced you the testimony in the NT was true?
LikeLike
re: “What convinced you the testimony in the NT was true?”
Like I said, that’s a different story. And, I’d be happy to share it with you, but, hehehe… not in THIS crowd. I’ve never seen people so willing to twist words and misrepresent what others have said than what I’ve seen in this blog. (Except, I read Richard Carriers “On the Historicity of Jesus”, and only then did I become convinced that there was someone else that could twist words and misrepresent what others have said on an equal par, if not worse, than what I’ve seen in this blog. I mean, Carrier can even manage to spill the banks of English, twisting words in Greek, which is something nobody on this blog seems to be able to do).
I’ll send you an email, and we can take it from there. Everybody else is just gonna have to wait….
LikeLike
Alright…I don’t need a detailed response, though. I dont need a personal testimony. Something like “a personal encounter with Christ” makes sense to me. Like I articulated earlier, it is a combination of things: (A) I do find the NT/Gospels to be historically reliable (B) I think Christianity makes more sense than any other religion or atheism–makes more sense of reality, and (C) there is a personal/spiritual/revelatory element to it as well.
LikeLike
re: “Alright…I don’t need a detailed response, though. I dont need a personal testimony. Something like “a personal encounter with Christ” makes sense to me. ”
I think maybe I’ll just hold off on writing. I mean, you’re talking about stuff like “personal testimony” and “personal encounters with Christ”, and I can’t think of anything that tells me we’re nowhere on the same page, or even NEAR the same page, as that.
But, thanks anyway….
LikeLike
Nice try, Joel.
“Aussie” has said in the past that he is not going to share the reasons for his faith in Jesus, the resurrected Christ, until he has published a book about it. He has been using this “book publishing” excuse for at least the last five years. By my calculations, Aussie is in his mid to late 80s. I wouldn’t hold your breath for a book to ever be completed, let alone published.
LikeLike
Okay…got it. Sorry, though, but I’ve noticed that you tend to never give a straightforward, simple answer to anything on this blog. You’re always dodging the question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
re: “You’re always dodging the question.”
Joel, buddy, I flat-out offered to write to you privately to tell you why I believe the testimony of those that say they saw a resurrected Jesus, but, you immediately jumped to putting conditions on it. It had to fit in some particular category with you, like, “a personal encounter with Christ”.
So, forget that. You’re not interested in what I was perfectly willing to tell you.
So, don’t go around saying I’m “always dodging the question” when I was totally willing to give you the answer privately. The fact is, you’re not interested in hearing my answer unless somehow it’s going to fit with your paradigm.
LikeLike
Aussie doesn’t want to share publicly why he believes in the Resurrection. Joel doesn’t want to talk publicly about his conversion or the age of his conversion.
That should tell you a lot about the rationality of belief in Christianity’s bizarre claims: virginal conceptions, water-walking, and corpse revivification, dear Reader.
LikeLike
I don’t know about Joel, so I can’t comment on that.
But for me? Well, it would just be a flat-out waste of time to try to explain my reasoning here in this blog.
I mean, the only possible reference point anybody – whether Christian or non-Christian – here on this blog seems to have is some kind of post-Pentecost Christianity. Or, even worse than that – some kind of post-Reformation Christianity.
And that’s why there’s always the constant bunnytrails about the “historical reliability of the Gospels” or whether “God speaks to you in your heart”, or questions about “how old were you when you became a Christian”, and so on and so on and so on. It’s total BS, coupled with a great deal of intellectual dishonesty, lot’s of denial-ism, hardcore a priori biases, and in some cases, total ignorance of the topic matter altogether.
So, it’s just not worth my time to get into “my stuff” here in this blog.
LikeLike
Whatever.
Ask me a straight answer about my worldview and you will get a straight, simple, concise answer.
LikeLike
I don’t care about your worldview, and you don’t care about mine. But, that’s not the question here, is it?
You want to know why I’m convinced that when the earliest resurrection claimants said “Jesus was raised from the dead”, they were (a) talking about a bodily resurrection, and (b) they were telling the truth.
But, my “worldview” has never been hidden even remotely: I’m convinced that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, and that one thing is the very basis for my Christian belief.
LikeLike
If more and more Christians become ashamed to publicly discuss the reasons and circumstances for their coming to “faith” in Jesus, the resurrected Christ, as you and Joel have done here, the sooner Christianity will join the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods in the dustbin of history.
Atheism thanks you both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
Mike Drop.
That was very funny.
🤣
LikeLike
Gary –
You know, YOU are TRULY indoctrinated.
re: “If more and more Christians become ashamed to publicly discuss the reasons and circumstances for their coming to “faith” in Jesus…”
I’m not going to answer for Joel, but for myself, I got no hesitancy whatsoever to discuss my faith with anyone at all. I’m not the slightest bit ashamed to do so.
My REASONS and CIRCUMSTANCES for having “come to my faith in Jesus” I’ve also stated plainly: I believe the TESTIMONY of those who said they had see Jesus as a corporeally-existent, living-again person after his death.
What rankles YOU is that I don’t give any “explanation” for why on earth I’d believe such absurd nonsense. And, that’s just too bad. But, that explanation is NOT going to happen here on this blog.
So, while I truly appreciate your blatant attempt at narcissistic manipulation in all it’s glory (which speaks only of a truly high-level of your own pain and discomfort, and speaks equally highly of your own intellectual dishonesty), I am nonetheless under no compunction whatsoever to “explain” anything at all to you about “why I believe something that someone said”.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me the only ways one becomes convinced of the resurrection are pretty much limited to: a) an unwavering belief in the bible story about the event, or (b) a convincing dream/experience.
Unless one has conquered the ability to travel to the past to view events first-hand … 🤔
On the other hand, I am acquainted with an individual who had a LSD experience that convinced him of certain things related to religious belief so … you never know.
LikeLike
Yes, you’re wrong.
There were many, many people that became convinced that Jesus’ resurrection occurred long before ANYTHING was written about it.
I don’t get this one bit: “Unless one has conquered the ability to travel to the past to view events first-hand …”
What has THAT got to do with anything? When a jury sits in a trial, THEY don’t have any ability whatsoever to “travel to the past to view events first-hand”. All they can do is listen to whatever evidence is presented to them by the lawyers, whether it be forensic evidence or testimony. And despite their inability to “travel to the past to view events first-hand”, we completely accept that they will be able to determine whether the evidence and testimony is sufficient to establish “what really happened”. So – I find your statement that “Unless one has conquered the ability to travel to the past to view events first-hand …” to be utterly baffling.
I mean, Nan, good grief — if a woman’s hubbie says “honey, I put the car in the garage”, OBVIOUSLY she doesn’t need to “travel to the past” to see if that’s true. I mean – sheesh.
LikeLike
**Sigh** As usual, you miss the point. But no biggie. I said my piece and I feel certain others interpreted it correctly.
LikeLike
Right. Of course. If others “interpret” you correctly, then they’d agree because what you said MUST be correct.
I’d love to live in the world you live in, Nan.
LikeLike
Nan’s reasons for not believing in first century corpse revivification seem very rational to me and I would bet to the overwhelming majority of the world’s billons of non-Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You don’t need to worry about answering for Nan. She already knows that whatever she says is correct, and the only reason for thinking otherwise if if her “hearer/reader” MISINTERPRETS her. Any “correct interpretation” is going to lead to immediate agreement.
So, she has a high degree of confidence in that. You have no need whatsoever to “come to her rescue”.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for your professional psychoanalysis, aussie. I never knew such stuff about myself!! And you even provided it for FREE!
LikeLike
No problem. Happy to be of service.
LikeLike
Is it rational to believe the uncorroborated testimony of unknown persons from 20 centuries ago regarding alleged sightings of a revivified corpse?
Hell no!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I admire you for consistency. Whenever something comes up that is contrary to your “a priori” beliefs, you deem it “irrational”.
You’re too obvious, Gary.
LikeLike
Then why the hell do you spend so much on Gary’s blog ostensibly running round in circles like a headless chicken?
LikeLike
@ Aussie.
In this latest comment you appear to have dismissed most (all?) the usual vague, supernatural style reasons( excuses?) for belief in the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
One is left to ponder, are you alluding to something more concrete?
A scientific explanation, maybe?
LikeLike
I’m just noting (because I’ve seen it previously) that you are just really, really hesitant to say anything specific about the reasons for your beliefs and stances. Like I said, I don’t need to hear detailed reasons. The specifics of your reasons are personal to you and are none of my business. I was just looking for a general reason, which I would think would be very easier and less of a hassle for you.
LikeLike
The reason I’m hesitant to get to “specifics” of what convinced me that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead is that this blog is NOT the forum for explaining it.
LikeLike
I’m not asking for specifics, though. That’s none of my business. But if you’re uncomfortable with just giving a general impression, so be it. Was it some kind of personal experience or revelation? Fine….that would be good enough for me. But whatever….
LikeLike
re: “Was it some kind of personal experience or revelation? Fine….that would be good enough for me”.
No. It wasn’t.
LikeLike
Jesus appeared to your BFF?
LikeLiked by 1 person
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ…
LikeLike
well, I’m glad to know you’re not ashamed of the gospel. And neither am I.
LikeLike
We are on the edge of our seats…
not.
It is obvious that either you or someone you trust (which by your comment seems to be the case) saw Jesus. Good for you! If I saw Jesus I too would believe. Tell you what. Next time Jesus appears to you or your trusted buddy/family member, tell him to pop over to my place. I want to poke my finger in his wounds like he (allegedly) allowed ol’ Thomas to do in order for him to believe.
LikeLike
re: “Why is one group of “Gospels” historically reliable and the other group is not?”
This isn’t rocket-science stuff.
The canonical Gospels are first-century documents. None of the other Gospels are. That played a big part in deciding which ones were valid, and which were not.
Another thing that played a role in the decision-making had to do with whether a given Gospel was saying something that was “in line” with what had been taught in the years before they were written. A Gospel that said “there was an empty tomb” was going to be in line with whatever it was the church had been teaching prior to the writing of that particular Gospel. If a Gospel said “Jesus’ corpse rotted away on the cross”, then that would have been inconsistent with what the church had been teaching prior to the writing of that Gospel.
Of course, this begs the question: How does anyone know that the church *always* taught (for example) an “empty tomb”? How do we know that originally, the teaching was that Jesus’ corpse was thrown in a communal grave, and switched over time to Jesus having been put in a tomb?” Good questions. And, I’d leave it to someone else to answer that one.
All I’m getting at is this: The guys that decided which Gospels were to be included in the canon, and which were not, actually had some “standards”, and they made those decisions based on those standards.
Now, one can question whether those “standards” were really valid, or, whether the amounted to “let’s just pick the Gospels WE like, and that tell the message that WE want to tell”, or whether those standards really were based on what had been “taught from the beginning”. But, that subject is out of my league.
LikeLike
A Gospel that said “there was an empty tomb” was going to be in line with whatever it was the church had been teaching prior to the writing of that particular Gospel. If a Gospel said “Jesus’ corpse rotted away on the cross”, then that would have been inconsistent with what the church had been teaching prior to the writing of that Gospel.
Assumption. It is entirely possible that first century Christians had no issue with embellishments to the Jesus Story, as long as the character of Jesus was consistent with his historical reputation and the bodily resurrection teaching remained intact. Embellishments like the discovery of an empty tomb simply enhanced the Resurrection Story, making it more interesting and more believable to possible converts.
LikeLike
Just thought I’d back up and respond to this:
Me: A Gospel that said “there was an empty tomb” was going to be in line with whatever it was the church had been teaching prior to the writing of that particular Gospel.
You: Assumption. It is entirely possible that first century Christians had no issue with embellishments to the Jesus Story, as long as the character of Jesus was consistent with his historical reputation and the bodily resurrection teaching remained intact.
I never said embellishments couldn’t be “in line” with whatever had been previously taught. If it was taught that Jesus was placed in a tomb, then later, an embellishment that the tomb was found empty would indeed be “in line” with what the church had already been teaching. If the church had simply taught that “Jesus died, was buried, was raised up, and was seen by Peter and The Twelve”, then again, an embellishment that Jesus had been buried in a tomb, and the tomb was later found empty, would be “in line” with what the church taught.
You are too quick to say “Assumption” sometimes.
LikeLike
Now, one can question whether those “standards” were really valid, or, whether the amounted to “let’s just pick the Gospels WE like, and that tell the message that WE want to tell”, or whether those standards really were based on what had been “taught from the beginning”. But, that subject is out of my league.
Again, I like your thinking. Very rational. If only Joel held your views.
LikeLike
Gary –
re: “But there had to be a first (alleged) Marian apparition. ”
There was. As I said, it was in the 15th century.
re: “So I will bet marian apparitions didn’t start until several hundreds of years after Jesus’ death”
Like I said…
re: “So the first Marian apparition would have been a very novel concept in Christianity”
I’m sure it was. I’m also sure, from having read up on the history of “Marian-ism”, that such a thing could happen was entirely within the realm of the “spooky” (IMHO) beliefs held by the Catholic Church. After all, they believed that Mary had been assumed bodily into heaven, and there was nothing whatsoever in the belief system that PROHIBITED her from popping down to earth from time to time. So, yeh, I’m sure it was a novelty, but it didn’t “fly in the face” of already-held dogmas.
The claim that Jesus was bodily resurrected DID fly in the face of dogmas held by those that believed in “resurrection at the Last Day”, because what those Jews believed was exactly that: There would be, at the Last Day, when God made a New Heaven and a New Earth, a “general resurrection”. To this day, the belief of “individual resurrections” BEFORE The Last Day is considered a wildly-fringe view among those that believe in such a resurrection. It’s not that it COULDN’T happen, but that it WOULDN’T happen because the “resurrection of the dead” (and the transformation of people still alive at The Last Day) was just the “mechanism” that God would use (in regards to people) in His much BIGGER project of re-making the Cosmos. So, “resurrection” was just part-and-parcel with that much bigger project.
So, it was entirely unlike Marian apparitions, which had no prior belief which PREVENTED them from happening. An individual resurrection DID have a prior belief that PREVENTED it from happening – hence – there could have been no “expecation” of it.
I think the difficult word here is “expectation”. By using that word, I don’t mean to imply “anticipation”. Like, when the first Portuguese boy had his “Marian apparition”, I don’t think he was ANTICIPATING it. But – could such a thing have been EXPECTED to happen? Yes, of course – there was nothing to PREVENT it in any “Marian-related” “theology”. Why SHOULDN’T such a thing be expected?
The claim of Jesus’ resurrection was neither based on an “anticipated” thing, nor was it based on any set of criteria of “what could be expected”.
The first Marian apparition had to have been “novel”, but, not something “rejectable” based on some previously-held dogma. Such a thing could have been “expected”, becaue there was nothing saying “it can’t happen”.
The resurrection of Jesus was also “novel”, but it was quite “rejectable” based on previously-held dogma. Such a thing could not have been expected, because it was utterly contrary to what “resurrection” was understood to be – which was always a “general resurrection at the Last Day”.
LikeLike
Or, the resurrection was simply a tale made from whole cloth?
Humans are often quite easily duped and there are enough examples throughout history to support this, whether this be individuals or large groups.
With your somewhat unique approach to this subject you seem to qualify / fit into both categories.
Furthermore, once a belief takes hold it can spread like a virus, especially if it has the endorsement of the state, and even more so if there are tacit and overt incentives to “join the club”, or else… Under such conditions it doesn’t take much for people to buy into it, especially if the promises it makes have an appeal that the individual can relate.
I presume you also consider yourself a sinner and as a believer you are expecting eternal life after you die, yes?
LikeLike
I mean, most everybody and their dog who has looked seriously at the history of the strange claim that “Jesus was raised from the dead” for the last 250 years (and, I’m talking about people with more than a 6th grade education), has considered the idea that “somebody just made it up”, and blown that idea off.
And, I blow that idea off as well. And I’m very, very comfortable doing so. It’s an old, outdated idea posited by those that are totally uninformed.
But, thanks for your thoughts. They’ve gone promptly into the trashbin.
LikeLike
I am not a mythicist but I do believe that the historicity of Jesus hangs by a thread. I believe it is entirely possible that Paul (in one of his delusional states) invented “the Christ” and his resurrection. Decades later, the authors of the canonical and non-canonical simply embellished Paul’s bare bones character. What about Josephus and Tacitus? It is possible that Josephus’ two very brief mentions of this great miracle worker are later Christian interpolations. Yes, it is a minority opinion of historians who hold that view but it is still a possibility. And Tacitus may have simply been repeating information Christian prisoners had told him.
So I don’t believe it is irrational to be a mythicist. The only reason why Bart Ehrman believes that Jesus is historical is because there were at least three independent sources who mention him (Mark, Josephus, and Tacitus) and no critic in Antiquity alleged that Jesus the Christ was a fictional invention. Thin evidence, but still evidence.
So you and Ark should just agree to disagree.
LikeLike
I totally agree that the evidence for Jesus is thin – especially, compared to, say, the evidence for Julius Caesar.
But, on the other hand, there are numerous people that (for example) Josephus mentions only once – and, because of that – historians (who generally feel quite comfortable with Josephus’ “reporting”) figure “oh, well, there just have been some guy named Schlomo (or whatever the name was) back at that time”.
We’re talking ancient history here, and it all gets down to “probability”. But not mere “possibility”. I mean, technically speaking, *anything’s* “possible”.
As far as Mythicism goes, my personal take is that it’s just a lot easier to believe that there was some real guy named Jesus who got crucified, and was later said (by some) to have been raised from the dead, than it is to believe any of the “Mythicist” ideas. It takes far too much “work” to make a “Mythology hypothesis” work. If you throw Occam’s Razor at it, the simplest idea – that there was a real guy named Jesus who got crucified – is just way the heck easier to find probable.
And, of course, that’s how about 99.5% of historians see it, as well.
Christians like to say there’s a lot of evidence for Jesus’ existence. Me? I can’t take it that far at all. There’s scant evidence, but, there is indeed evidence.
On the other hand, there is (for example) no evidence whatsoever that there was ever a cult that believed in a Mythical Celestial Jesus (as per Carrier). There is absolutely NO MENTION WHATSOEVER in any 2nd-Temple-era Jewish writings that even bring up the name of “Jesus” EXCEPT when referring to a real person (and, there were numerous real “Jesuses” mentioned in early Jewish writings — it was a very popular name).
What Ark is talking about, though, is what I call the “Folklore Jesus”. It’s different than “Mythology”, but it’s often lumped together in the same bucket. The Folklore Jesus is a Jesus that never existed at all, except as a “folk legend”, maybe like Robin Hood or King Arthur. And tall tales were told about this Folklore Jesus. Including that he had been raised from the dead. In other words, people just “made it up”. And, it’s an idea that is not only nixxed by the overwhelming majority of scholars, it’s even nixxed by real Mythologists.
Funny you should mention the idea of Paul inventing “Christ”. Not ten minutes ago, I read a blog post by Ehrman on exactly that topic, and he nixes it totally. Paul was persecuting a church that already existed before he himself became a “believer”, and the message of that church was that Jesus was raised from the dead. He wraps things up by saying “Without those resurrection visions, Christianity would not have started. If Christianity had not started, Paul could not have persecuted it. So the visions of Jesus happened before Paul; they weren’t invented because he said he had one.”
I’d have to agree with Ehrman. But, then Ehrman agrees with Ludemann who agrees with Wright who agrees with Vermes who agrees with Licona (etc, etc, etc) on this topic.
LikeLike
And I too find it exasperating that you are unwilling to tell us why you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But that is your choice.
So let’s leave it alone, shall we everyone?
LikeLike
I went back and re-read my messages, and I really can’t figure out why you’re now saying I’m ” unwilling to tell us why you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus”.
I’ve spend NUMEROUS messages saying EXACTLY why I believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
I think it’s the Hypothesis (explanation) that explains the advent of the claim that “Jesus was raised from the dead” best. It’s that simple.
I get the feeling that there’s something else you want to hear from me, like “I had a great, emotional, spiritual revelation and I could FEEL Jesus in my heart” or something. As if it’s impossible to come to believe that “the reason some people in the first-century said ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ was because that’s what happened” unless there’s something “religious” or “spiritual” or “emotional” attached to it. Or SOMETHING. I dunno what.
But, all I can say is go back and re-read my messages. It’s all right there. *shrug*
All I can figure is that it’s just to “plain” for you to take notice of. OR – maybe it’s that there’s some question you’re wanting to ask, but, I’m just not “getting” it. I got no idea what the problem is…
LikeLike
So to be clear: you believe a bodily resurrection of Jesus is the most probable explanation for the Resurrection Belief because a literal sighting of a resurrected body is the best evidence to convince someone a resurrection has occurred? Really?? Substitute “unicorn” or Leprechaun” or “Sasquatch” into that sentence and ask yourself how such thinking is rational. It is not.
According to Occam’ s Razor, the simplest explanation is the most probable explanation for any odd event: cognitive dissonance regarding the unexpected death of their leader combined with religious hysteria resulted in a supernatural explanation for the man’s sudden demise.
LikeLike
re: “So to be clear: you believe a bodily resurrection of Jesus is the most probable explanation for the Resurrection Belief because a literal sighting of a resurrected body is the best evidence to convince someone a resurrection has occurred?”
Well, you said so. “Sure, seeing an actual resurrected body is going to be the most convincing evidence that a resurrection has occurred. I agree.”
So, what’s the problem????
LikeLike
Seeing an actual unicorn is the best evidence possible for believing in the existence of unicorns. Duh.
Unless you are inferring that you have literally seen Jesus, your thinking on this issue is not rational.
LikeLike
Gary, whenever someone asks me what the best evidence of a resurrection is, I’m just going to quote you on this.
“Seeing an actual resurrected body is going to be the most convincing evidence that a resurrection has occurred”.
NOW – you say “UNLEss you are inferring that you have literally seen Jesus, your thinking on this issue is not rational”.
So, if I DID say “I have literally seen Jesus”, then it IS rational. OK. Fine. I can work with that.
According to YOU, “seeing an actual resurrected body is going to be the MOST CONVINCING evidence that a resurrection has occurred.
The HYPOTHESIS says “the bodily resurrected Jesus was SEEN by Peter and The Twelve” — and, according to you, THIS is therefore NOT “irrational”.
And, THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT, TOO!!!
So, I simply came to believe THAT HYPOTHESIS – or that “explanation”: Peter and The Twelve said they had literally SEEN a bodily-resurrected Jesus (according to this hypothesis) – and that is NOT irrational (*according to you), and this SEEING of a resurrected body is the MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE (according to you).
So, I basically just “followed YOUR lead”, Gary. I agreed with this Hypothesis. I think it explains things BEST.
And, apparently, so do you.
LikeLike
And that is why YOU believe in the resurrection?
LikeLike
Why not? The most convincing evidence of a resurrection would be seeing a resurrected body (according to you). And, according to you, it would be rational to for someone to say they’d seen a resurrected body, if that’s what they saw.
One hypothesis says that’s exactly what happened: people saw a resurrected body – the most convincing evidence – and so they said so.
Should I not just go with that hypothesis?
Or, to put it another way, is there some reason I should go with a “second (or third, fourth, or fifth) best hypothesis?
LikeLike
The most convincing evidence of an Elvis sighting would be seeing Elvis. And, according to you, it would be rational for someone to say they’d seen Elvis, if that’s what they saw.
Yes, but that truism is not a rational justification for you to believe that Elvis is still alive.
LikeLike
re: “The most convincing evidence of an Elvis sighting would be seeing Elvis. And, according to you, it would be rational for someone to say they’d seen Elvis“
No, Gary – that’s according to YOU. YOU SAID SO.
LikeLike
I’m done.
LikeLike
Yiu didn’t respond whether as a believer vyiu consider yourself a sinner who can only be redeemed via the blood of a the first century human sacrifice, Jesus of Nazareth(sic)?
Is the reason you “blown this off as well” because you have succumbed to a degree of indoctrination?
LikeLike
I may have missed a response to this question among the innumerable comments you have posted.
Is it correct to say therefore, you became a Christian on the strength of your conviction that Jesus physically rise from the dead?
LikeLike