resurrection alternatives: discussion 1

[Josh]

Quote:
Yeshuafreak- you still have not given your hypothesis on why those closest to the historical Jesus were claiming from the get-go that he had risen bodily from the dead.



because they believed he did. duh.

Why did they believe it??? Duh

I so disagree based on my own experience. The historical Jesus is the tether by which our own subjective experience of the cosmic Jesus is measured.
like i said, to some it is VERY beneficial, but not for all.

My point is that it should be beneficial for all.

i suppose that the women started the rumor. why? perhaps out of denial, perhaps for power, perhaps because of delusion. i havent the slightest idea of their psychological state at the time. but their rumor spread and the disciples beleived it. none of them ever visited the tomb, i am sure of it. and the stone was never removed, i am sure of it. the romans were far to regimented.but it started with the women, spread to the disciples, spread to the disciple's disciples, and then there you go.

Thanks for finally giving me something to argue with.

So, do you think the women visited the wrong tomb? Why would the disciples have believed the testimony of women? Why wouldn't the disciples have attempted to verify the truth (as the gospel accounts say they did). Why wouldn't the Pharisees produce the body when they began proclaiming the resurrection within weeks of Jesus' death?

Let's just start with those questions.

[yeshuafreak]

I am an 'historian' after all

you are? as in ameteur or professional?

I'm trying to say that [history] doesn't mean faith

i totally agree

Just as Josh said, the people who were with Jesus knew his actual, physical history, and they believed...

but WHY did they beleive. did they beleive because they saw him rise? or did they beleive because they heard he rose from the women? did they see an empty tomb? was it empty because he rose or because of some other unknown reason (like the caeser removing it)?

and are things written in the gospels dramatizations? definitely. Jesus rose... why? heaven is not above us, so no matter how far he "rose" he would still end up in some distant galazy, not heaven. so even if we beleived they did see him rise, we would have to interpret how the gospels write it as a metaphor.

so what i am trying to say is there are other theories that can explain the evidence given for the resurrection-- none are foolproof, as the resurrection theory itself is not, but they are better because they agree with logic, reason, and science as well. (not all of them, like the swoon theory or twin theory, but there are some).

-john

[Josh]

but WHY did they beleive. did they beleive because they saw him rise? or did they beleive because they heard he rose from the women? did they see an empty tomb?

No one saw him rise. But they did see the empty tomb, we can be
convinced of that. The gospel accounts say the disciples verified that the tomb was empty and also tell us that the Jewish authorities (read hostile witnesses) also acknowledged it was empty. That this report is credible is backed by the fact that when written it could have easily been rebuffed if the Jewish authorities had they not claimed the body was stolen. It seems clear that the Jewish claim was that the body had been stolen, not that the disciples had gone to the wrong tomb or that Jesus had been put in a shallow grave to be eaten by wild dogs. If we can ascertain that Jesus' tomb was empty, then we are only left with so many options.

was it empty because he rose or because of some other unknown reason (like the caeser removing it)?

What motive would the Caesar have in removing it? How would that account for the angelic presence at the tomb or for the account of the guards at the tomb? How would that account for the testimony of the apostles that they actually ate and drank with and touched the risen Jesus?

and are things written in the gospels dramatizations? definitely. Jesus rose... why? heaven is not above us, so no matter how far he "rose" he would still end up in some distant galazy, not heaven. so even if we beleived they did see him rise, we would have to interpret how the gospels write it as a metaphor.

Jesus' "rising" refers to him coming back from the dead; it is separate than his "ascension", which of course is a metaphor for his transportation to the heavenly dimension.

so what i am trying to say is there are other theories that can explain the evidence given for the resurrection-- none are foolproof, as the resurrection theory itself is not, but they are better because they agree with logic, reason, and science as well. (not all of them, like the swoon theory or twin theory, but there are some).

Which ones, then, do you think are more logical than the gospel claim? I think it's demonstrable that every other theory has more difficulties than the account given by the early church. I could anticipate all the alternatives you might suggest (like the shallow grave theory) but I'd rather respond to the one or two that you think are the soundest.

[yeshuafreak]

The gospel accounts say the disciples verified that the tomb was empty and also tell us that the Jewish authorities (read hostile witnesses) also acknowledged it was empty...How would that account for the angelic presence at the tomb or for the account of the guards at the tomb?

you take the gospel accounts as a history book. this is not the mind of any historian. i dont care what the gospels say. they also say jesus ascended as if that was an historical fact-- but you interpret THAT as a metaphor. something so plainly written as history, a metaphor?!

in the same sentence, it seems that a lot of things in the gospels were not written as history. dialogues especially in the gospel of John are either dry and fictional or for drama. other things "done" were most likly not done at all.

the reason why you consider resurrection to be the best option is because you believe things the gospels say as history no matter what. "angelic presence"? really? come on. you are really submitting that into an historical debate? that astounds me.

-john

[Josh]

One need not have any blind faith in the claims of the gospels to make the point I'm making.

The "empty tomb" can be established by basic facts that the majority of scholars agree with.

I brought up the "angelic visitors" not because a person must believe they were there just because the gospels say they were, but because a person who doesn't believe they were there must explain why the gospel writers said they were. If someone concludes that there really were no angels at the empty tomb, then they have to postulate that either this is a deliberate lie, an accrued legend, or a misunderstanding. But there is good evidence against all three alternative conclusions. Which one do you lean most toward? Lie, legend, or some kind of misunderstanding? I'd love to respond to any or any combo.

[Josh]

you take the gospel accounts as a history book. this is not the mind of any historian. i dont care what the gospels say

The gospels are historical accounts and are held to contain valuable history by almost all scholars- it's just that there is disagreement about how accurate that history is.

they also say jesus ascended as if that was an historical fact-- but you interpret THAT as a metaphor. something so plainly written as history, a metaphor?!

People in Jesus' day didn't think heaven was up in the sky somewhere. They knew that sky was a metaphor for "heaven"- wherever that might be exactly. Jesus may have risen into the sky or he may have simply vanished at his ascension-that's irrelevant and the text in Luke doesn't specify.

[Josh]

dialogues especially in the gospel of John are either dry and fictional or for drama.

Dry?

Obviously there is paraphrasing going on in all the gospels, not word-for-word renditions of Jesus' words in most cases. But that doesn't mean the essential content is questionable, any more than if you wrote up a single monologue from me on a subject I had written much about in various places, piecing my thought together, even explaining things that might not be super clear.

other things "done" were most likly not done at all.

Based on what criteria? How do you know if something was "most likely not done"?

the reason why you consider resurrection to be the best option is because you believe things the gospels say as history no matter what.

I do? No, I don't have the a priori assumption, though I do have the assumption that a historical record should be taken at face value until sufficient evidence turns up to the contrary.

"angelic presence"? really? come on. you are really submitting that into an historical debate? that astounds me.

As I hopefully explained above, you're misunderstanding me. It's not the angelic presence I'm submitting into the historical debate. It's the claim of an angelic presence I'm submitting to the historical debate.

[yeshuafreak]

Dry?

i actually was typing something else at the time. i think gospel dialogue often gets quite dramatic.

Obviously there is paraphrasing going on in all the gospels, not word-for-word renditions of Jesus' words in most cases. But that doesn't mean the essential content is questionable, any more than if you wrote up a single monologue from me on a subject I had written much about in various places, piecing my thought together, even explaining things that might not be super clear.

of course paraphrasing can go on, but there are still highly improbable statements and conversations-- like john3

Based on what criteria? How do you know if something was "most likely not done"?

i am about to get there.

I do? No, I don't have the a priori assumption, though I do have the assumption that a historical record should be taken at face value until sufficient evidence turns up to the contrary.

but the gospels are not an historical record and there is pretty good suffient evidence against things written in them.

As I hopefully explained above, you're misunderstanding me. It's not the angelic presence I'm submitting into the historical debate. It's the claim of an angelic presence I'm submitting to the historical debate.

okay- that makes more sense. the previous understanding of mine didnt quite fit what you would do.

-john

[yeshuafreak]

I am going to start another thread on this-- josh, please move it and change the link if i post it in the wrong spot.

-john

aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=historyboard&thread=2834&page=1

[Josh]

but the gospels are not an historical record

Of course they are. They are records of supposedly historical events.

[Josh]

Regarding John chapter 3 and it's historicity, please take this link:

aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=john&action=display&thread=582

Check out my comments on the 6th post in particular.

[yeshuafreak]

Of course they are. They are records of supposedly historical events

sure. my point is that (1) they KNOW that some of the events they wrote werent historical (2) even if they didn't, WE KNOW a good deal of those events are not reliable.

john

[yeshuafreak]

So, do you think the women visited the wrong tomb? Why would the disciples have believed the testimony of women? Why wouldn't the disciples have attempted to verify the truth (as the gospel accounts say they did). Why wouldn't the Pharisees produce the body when they began proclaiming the resurrection within weeks of Jesus' death?

i think the women may not have visited the tomb in the first place. they had all the reason to lie about him resurrecting. if he died than the only social place where they had rights would disappear. their life was much better in the christian community. and they wanted that back.

the pharisees did not proclaim jesus' resurrection. this is totally out of line with everything else we know. saying "the gospels said it" isnt that strong of an argument, either.

john

[Josh]

(1) they KNOW that some of the events they wrote werent historical (2) even if they didn't, WE KNOW a good deal of those events are not reliable.

Can you demonstrate, by example, either of these points with near certainty?

i think the women may not have visited the tomb in the first place. they had all the reason to lie about him resurrecting. if he died than the only social place where they had rights would disappear. their life was much better in the christian community. and they wanted that back.

OK. Let's consider the theory that the women purposefully lied and flesh it out a bit.

If the women lied, what then do we make of the account that the disciples went and verified that the tomb was empty? (apparently even the disciples were concerned that the women might have been making the story up)

Also, your theory doesn't explain (yet) the accounts of the disciples themselves actually encountering the risen Christ in bodily form.

the pharisees did not proclaim jesus' resurrection. this is totally out of line with everything else we know. saying "the gospels said it" isnt that strong of an argument, either.

You're misunderstanding my sentence which wasn't written well

In my original sentence: Why wouldn't the Pharisees produce the body when they began proclaiming the resurrection within weeks of Jesus' death the "they" is the disicples, not the Pharisees. Sorry about that.

Here's what I meant. Consider Matthew 28:11-15, especially the last part of verse 15:

11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

It is very unlikely that Matthew and his community would, in their gospel, make a statement like this (that the Jews were saying the body was stolen) unless their opponents were in fact claiming that. In other words, it must have been plain to everyone that the dominant explanation for the mystery of Easter, according to the religious authorities, was that the body of Jesus had been stolen. And if that was the dominant counter claim against the resurrection, then both sides assumed an empty tomb.

Matthew included these details about a guard for the very reason that the skeptics were claiming that the body had been stolen, not that there was no empty tomb.

Had Jesus been buried in a shallow grave and been eaten by dogs, as one popular critic claims, then that would have been the counter-claim used by the critics of Christianity, and it would have been a claim that would have needed to have been directly rebutted by the early church (lie or no)