Alternative "theories" on how the Resurrection was a fake

[Mersenne]

Document a few examples.

Ceasar.

No, it isn’t. It’s a mere 90 years, which is barely two generations at best.

People lived to around 30, the average age for starting a family certainly wasn’t 45. It’s 3 generations at best. It is not considered by anyway, historians included, to be contemporary writings. None of it was eyewitness. That’s considered a historical fact.

Also, you have ignored the fact that the earliest NT writings can be reliably dated to around the first half of the 1st century A.D.

I haven’t ignored it, it’s irrelevent. The earliest NT writings don’t claim to have ever seen anything more then a vision of jesus.

You have also ignored the fact that contemporaries of Jesus were traveling the Roman Empire within just a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion, proclaiming that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead.

I doubt it. Maybe I’ll take a que from you and ask for “documentation.” The reality is that if you even look at writings about Christians decades later, there wasn’t even a clear impression that Christ was dead.

There were no “many generations” of time that elapsed, or, at least, you’ve still not presented any evidence of such.

You do have evidence, right?

Do I need to document how math works?

 

[Nickkname]

Some deny, a priori as it were, the historical nature and historical value of the documents of Revelation. And finally, some minimize the authority of the Apostles as witnesses to Christ. Belittling their office and their influence in the primitive community, these people exaggerate the creative power of the community itself.

All these opinions are not only contrary to Catholic doctrine, but also devoid of scholarly foundation and inconsistent with the sound principles of the historical method.

In order to establish the validity of the things contained in the Gospels, the exegete should carefully note the three stages of the tradition, through which the life and teaching of Jesus have come down to us.

1. Our Lords Teaching

Christ the Lord chose a select group of disciples,6who followed Him from the very beginning.7They saw His works and heard His words. Thus they were in a good position to be witnesses to His life and teaching.8

When tile Lord set forth His teaching orally, He used the forms of thought and expression prevailing at that time. Thus He adapted Himself to the mentality of His audience so that His teaching would be firmly impressed oil their minds and easily remembered by His disciples. The latter realized that the miracles and other events of Christ’s life, took place so that men might believe in Christ and embrace His message of salvation by faith.

1. The Apostles’ Teaching

The Apostles rendered testimony to Jesus,9announcing first and foremost the Lord’s death and resurrection. They faithfully set forth His life and His words,10adapting the format of their preaching to the condition of their audience.11 When Jesus rose from the dead and His divinity became manifest,12 faith by no means obliterated the memory of the events which bad taken place. On the contrary it reinforced these memories, because it rested on the things which Jesus had taught and done.13Nor did their worship of Jesus as Lord and Son of God transform Him into “mythological” figure, or distort His teaching.

However there is no reason to deny the fact that the apostles, in telling their listeners about our Lord’s deeds and words, utilized the fuller understanding which they had acquired from the glorious events of Christ’s life14and the guidance of, the Spirit of truth.15 After His resurrection Jesus Himself "interpreted to them"16His own words and those of the Old Testament.17 In a similar manner they explained His deeds and words according to the needs of their audience.

Devoting themselves, "to the ministry of the word,"18 they set about preaching, and utilized the type of presentation appropriate to their purpose and the mentality of their listeners. They were debtors19 to Greeks and to foreigners, to learned and unlearned."20 Indeed we can single out the following categories in the preaching of Christ’s heralds: catechetical formulas, narrative reports, eyewitness accounts, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and similar literary genres commonly found in Sacred Scripture and the speech of that period.

1. The Four Evangelists

This primitive instruction was passed on orally at first, and later written down. Indeed it was not long before many attempted "to draw up a narrative"21of the events connected with the Lord Jesus. The sacred authors, each using all approach suited to his specific purpose, recorded this primitive teaching in the four Gospels for the benefit of the churches.

Of the many elements at hand they reported some, summarized others, and developed still others in accordance with the needs of the various churches. They used every possible means to ensure that their readers would come to know the validity of the things they had been taught.22

From the material available to them the Evangelists selected those items most suited to their specific purpose and to the condition of a particular audience. And they narrated these events in the manner most suited to satisfy their purpose and their audience’s condition.

• Historicity of the Gospels, Instruction of the Pontifical Bible Commission

Source: catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3497

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is actually not very good evidence at all - every scrap of it comes from “insiders” -

This is like refusing to accept 12 eyewitness accounts to a murder because afterward, they all took one side against the murderer…and then asking for an account that is different because the rest of them are all “insiders” who are on the same page.

And if you want an “outsider” who changed his mind by what he witnessed, try Paul.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Originally Posted by patg
And, as for “eyewitnesses”, the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI have clearly stated, the gospel accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus are not eyewitness accounts and are not literal history (See the “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels” (April 21, 1964)).

Is this the part of that document that lead you to tell us that the PBC document puts the Resurrection into question?*VIII. The apostles proclaimed above all the death and resurrection of the Lord, as they bore witness to Jesus. They faithfully explained His life and words, while taking into account in their method of preaching the circumstances in which their listeners found themselves. After Jesus rose from the dead and His divinity was clearly perceived, faith, far from destroying the memory of what had transpired, rather confirmed it, because their faith rested on the things which Jesus did and taught.*The document may be used to show that the Evangelists sometimes used forms of transmission unique to themselves or their audiences. But you cannot reasonably cite the document to get anyone to believe the Church thinks the Resurrection is not “literal history.” Historical Truth of the Gospel emphatically tells us that the Resurrection is not one of the “truths” that is poetical, but clearly considers it historical.

Your comments are almost verbatum the first part of a sentence of a commentary by Joseph A. Fitzmyer on the document. The context of his statement reads: *the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists. **This form, however, reflects the two previous stages, and the second more than the first.***In other words, the written form is not necessarily the identical form of Jesus’ preaching or the original oral form of the Gospels which was transmitted via Tradition until the Scriptures were written. This would apply to, say, the exact words and order of a parable. Or the perceived color of Jesus’ robe during the Passion. However, the document does not call into question the historical nature of the Resurrection in the slightest, as you have suggested here, but rather undeniably confirms it.

For further reading on the historical value of Scripture, refer to the PBC’s more recent Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, which tells us the Resurrection has a narrative pedigree which we receive in the form of the testimony of witnesses (I.B.2), and Catechism #126 which affirms the historicity of what Scripture says about what Jesus said and did.

 

[Spirithound]

People lived to around 30, the average age for starting a family certainly wasn’t 45.

So Jesus was actually an old man when he was crucified?

 

[mlchance]

Ceasar.

Which Caesar? Do you mean Julius? If so, what myths are we talking about? Merely trotting out a single name is hardly documenting a few examples.

People lived to around 30, the average age for starting a family certainly wasn’t 45. It’s 3 generations at best. It is not considered by anyway, historians included, to be contemporary writings. None of it was eyewitness. That’s considered a historical fact.

Lifespans in the Roman Empire varied widely. Polycarp, for example, lived into his 80s, and he was a disciple of the Apostle John. As to what historians consider and what is historical fact, I’m confused as to your sources. I am an historian by training, and three out of four of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life.

I haven’t ignored it, it’s irrelevent. The earliest NT writings don’t claim to have ever seen anything more then a vision of jesus.

Actually, the earliest writings of the NT claim Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Sticking with somewhat contentious modern scholarship, 1 Thessalonians is probably the earliest NT document. In the introduction this letter, Paul explicitly references the Resurrection.

I doubt it. Maybe I’ll take a que from you and ask for “documentation.” The reality is that if you even look at writings about Christians decades later, there wasn’t even a clear impression that Christ was dead.

You’re now denying that Christianity spread quickly from city to city in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.? As you to assertion about the “reality” of “writings about Christians decades later”, it isn’t clear what your point is.

Do I need to document how math works?

No, but you do need to back up your claims with something that at least resembles evidence. So far, you’ve failed to do so. Your continuing failure to do so perhaps indicates you don’t actually have any evidence but, instead, are operating from an a priori assumption that you simply must be right regardless of how insubstantial is the basis for what you believe.

So, to reboot, you claim that the “myth explanation” is the most probable. Please, present evidence to that effect.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[patg]

However, the document does not call into question the historical nature of the Resurrection in the slightest, as you have suggested here, but rather undeniably confirms it.

I never said it did - I was using the reference to refute the statements of those who insist that the gospels are full of eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life, including the resurection. The PBC clearly states that the gospels do not represent first person/eyewitness accounts.

And besides, we are not even discussing whether the resurection occured or not - we are discussing the premise that there is essentially no historical evidence for it - that is, evidence that would pass the test of serious historian. If there were any compelling or even slightly reasonable evidence, it would be in the history books.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo
However, the document does not call into question the historical nature of the Resurrection in the slightest, as you have suggested here, but rather undeniably confirms it.

I never said it did

Yes, you did suggest that in posts 18 and 26.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Most of the important writings relating to that event were writen around the turn of the century,…

Response: Even the most secular scholars admit the accepted Pauline-written epistles have to have been written before the Jewish Revolt. And an increasing number of them are admiting Hebrews has to fall in that category as well. Finaly, even ultra-liberal theologians, like J.A.T Robinson (Anglican) are coming back to the traditional dating of all four gospels written before the 70 AD (excepting 2 sections of John) See Robinson’s The Priority of John

---

the earlier you go the less detail there is and the less it could be verified. Paul didn’t even seem to be pushing the idea of a physically existing Christ for quite awhile…

Response: That is a popular last-ditch defense of the mythologizers–it is such a strained and tenuous “interpretation” that it would be laughed at in any other historical context but secular-minded NT acadame

You can see the developement of the myth over time if you chronologically order the writings. Besides, myths have grown up around people WHILE THEY WERE STILL ALIVE. So I think you are woefully out of touch with reality on this one.

Response: There is sufficent evidence to credibly hold Matthew was written and published in hebrew or aramaic as early (or even earlier) than 44 AD–11 years. Thats earlier than the earliest Pauline epistles.
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm

Even the rabid anti-Christian “Jesus Seminar” of Bork, Crossan, etc…, admit the written texts that we have now are pretty much as they were first written–so they have to argue the mythologizing and magnification occured during a long extended oral transmission period. If the the time from events to written texts contracts, their biased hypothesis collapses

It does wash, that’s the reality of the times they were living in. No, I’m not claiming that there was no verification before the internet, you know I’m not, you’re just being dishonest. It was neigh impossible to verify such things back then, various mythologies like that were springing up all the time. Even now adays a myth can spring up in a few days and continue undisputed for decades.

Response: You had two major groups who hated the Christians and would have discredited them if they could have–The Jewish authorites and the Romans–aparently–they couldnt

 

[Nickkname]

The gospels and letters of the Apostles give absolute proof that Jesus was resurrected by referring to objections against it.

We read in the gospel that the Romans devised the plan to spread word that the Apostles stole Jesus’ body in order to make people believe he was resurrected. Now, if the Resurrection was a fake, than why would the Evangelist include that? The readers of the early Church would have thought, “Hey, wait a minute…I wonder if that is true?” And then they would have investigated the matter, and finding out the truth, Christianity would be ruined, and died off, just like so many other mystery religions of that time.

We read in the letter to the Church in Corith that Jesus was resurrected because there is a resurrection of the dead. This make sense, even on the surface, because Jesus is a man, and if there is no actual resurrection, than how could he have been resurrected? But the meaning of the words - if there is no resurrection of the dead, than neither is Jesus resurrected - goes even deeper: Jesus is the Resurrection. He is God Incarnate, and only God has the power to resurrect anyone. So if there is no resurrection, than certainly Jesus could not have been risen from the dead. And if Jesus is not resurrected, than our faith is in vain, our preaching is false, and we ourselves are still with our sins. Now, given all this, and that the readers of the early Church knew all this, wouldn’t they have thought, “Hey, wait…Jesus wasn’t resurrected, so how can there be a resurrection? And how can our religion be true? We are living in vain!” And Christianity would have crumbled to dust, just like many other religions of that time founded by people who purportedly rose again from the dead.

 

[Mersenne]

Which Caesar? Do you mean Julius? If so, what myths are we talking about? Merely trotting out a single name is hardly documenting a few examples.

Where did you get this so called historical training? You seem to be operating under the delusion that historical fact is determined by posting links over the internet. You don’t seem to have the slightest clue when it is and is not appropriate to demand evidence, as if you saw someone else doing it and thought you’d look smart by copying them. Myths have risen around people during their lifetime. Around the lifetime of people still alive today. Around the lifetime of numerous historical figures that I could list for pages. Around just about every single historical figure who ever existed. If you need me to document this then you are being willfully ignorent. Most our famous presidents is a good example.

Lifespans in the Roman Empire varied widely. Polycarp, for example, lived into his 80s, and he was a disciple of the Apostle John. As to what historians consider and what is historical fact, I’m confused as to your sources. I am an historian by training, and three out of four of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life.

As I’ve shown they clearly weren’t. And you certainly haven’t shown any evidence otherwise. All evidence, from their age, to their style, to their many contridictions, points to documents that were mearly recorded collections of rumor. It is impossible that they were intended to be eye witness accounts, as many of the events would have been impossible to witness, as when people were alone, their private thoughts, and so on. It was writen in an allegorical style. It is intended to be a mythology that has a message, nothing more. Any honest reading of the text reveals this to be true.

Actually, the earliest writings of the NT claim Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Sticking with somewhat contentious modern scholarship, 1 Thessalonians is probably the earliest NT document. In the introduction this letter, Paul explicitly references the Resurrection.

Yes, but what I said was that the those writings never claim to have physically met Jesus, which still stands true. Therefore, your absurd “gotcha” remains just that, absurd.

You’re now denying that Christianity spread quickly from city to city in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.?

Nope.

As you to assertion about the “reality” of “writings about Christians decades later”, it isn’t clear what your point is.

The non-christian populus didn’t have a clear enough picture of what Christianity was to go around debunking it, nor did they care, nor did they have the ability, and even if they did we might not have known. If you saw a magician raise someone from the dead, in person, you would automatically reject that as likely fake, I would hope. Yet you’re willing to accept this flimsy “evidence” that Christ rose from the dead as sufficient to define your entire life? We have much better evidence of the existence of the roman gods, by your standards, through things like the Illiad and the Odysy, which have also been shown to be somewhat historically accurate.

 

[Mersenne]

Response: You had two major groups who hated the Christians and would have discredited them if they could have–The Jewish authorites and the Romans–aparently–they couldnt

Can you please do the quoting right. It has become unreadable and I no longer wish to do the work in seperating it out properly just because you are unwilling.

 

[Nickkname]

Where did you get this so called historical training? You seem to be operating under the delusion that historical fact is determined by posting links over the internet. You don’t seem to have the slightest clue when it is and is not appropriate to demand evidence, as if you saw someone else doing it and thought you’d look smart by copying them. Myths have risen around people during their lifetime. Around the lifetime of people still alive today. Around the lifetime of numerous historical figures that I could list for pages. Around just about every single historical figure who ever existed. If you need me to document this then you are being willfully ignorent. Most our famous presidents is a good example.

As I’ve shown they clearly weren’t. And you certainly haven’t shown any evidence otherwise. All evidence, from their age, to their style, to their many contridictions, points to documents that were mearly recorded collections of rumor. It is impossible that they were intended to be eye witness accounts, as many of the events would have been impossible to witness, as when people were alone, their private thoughts, and so on. It was writen in an allegorical style. It is intended to be a mythology that has a message, nothing more. Any honest reading of the text reveals this to be true.

Yes, but what I said was that the those writings never claim to have physically met Jesus, which still stands true. Therefore, your absurd “gotcha” remains just that, absurd.

Nope.

The non-christian populus didn’t have a clear enough picture of what Christianity was to go around debunking it, nor did they care, nor did they have the ability, and even if they did we might not have known. If you saw a magician raise someone from the dead, in person, you would automatically reject that as likely fake, I would hope. Yet you’re willing to accept this flimsy “evidence” that Christ rose from the dead as sufficient to define your entire life? We have much better evidence of the existence of the roman gods, by your standards, through things like the Illiad and the Odysy, which have also been shown to be somewhat historically accurate.

Merely saying something doesn’t make it true. You have to prove it. So prove your claims, all of them. Otherwise, you’re just talking smack, Jack.

 

[mlchance]

Where did you get this so called historical training?

I graduated magna cum laude with a BA in history and minors in philosophy, theology, and English literature in May 1996. You?

Myths have risen around people during their lifetime. Around the lifetime of people still alive today. Around the lifetime of numerous historical figures that I could list for pages.

You keep saying that, and yet haven’t provided a single actual example.

As I’ve shown they clearly weren’t.

You haven’t clearly shown anything. You’ve merely made claims without substantiating those claims. When challenged, you resort to insults and then merely repeating the unsubstantiated claims.

Yes, but what I said was that the those writings never claim to have physically met Jesus, which still stands true.

Which is relevant to Paul’s situation how? No one has claimed Paul ever “physically met Jesus”. Your point is at best a non sequitur. Let’s quote Julius Muller. Since your an expert in the historicity of the New Testament, you undoubtedly know who Muller was:

One cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in an historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character [Jesus]…if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary fiction, as it likes not the clear present time but prefers the mysterious gloom of gray antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of space, and to remove its boldest and most rare and wonderful creations into a very remote and unknown land. (The Theory of Myths in Its Application to the Gospel History Examined and Confuted [London, 1844], p. 26)

Muller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure’s death. No one has ever answered him, and I’m willing to be you can’t either.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mersenne]

The gospels and letters of the Apostles give absolute proof that Jesus was resurrected by referring to objections against it.

We read in the gospel that the Romans devised the plan to spread word that the Apostles stole Jesus’ body in order to make people believe he was resurrected. Now, if the Resurrection was a fake, than why would the Evangelist include that?

Because he didn’t know it was fake, or because he wanted to provide an explination to cover up the truth that was being spread around.

The readers of the early Church would have thought, “Hey, wait a minute…I wonder if that is true?” And then they would have investigated the matter, and finding out the truth, Christianity would be ruined, and died off, just like so many other mystery religions of that time.

Unless they were unable to verify the claims, which isn’t unimaginable in those times. Or their faith was so absolute that they felt investigating the claims would be a sin against god.

So your so called “absolute proof” doesn’t even come close.

 

[Mersenne]

Merely saying something doesn’t make it true. You have to prove it. So prove your claims, all of them. Otherwise, you’re just talking smack, Jack.

Which claims do you need prove of? All of them are either supported by reasoning or should be well known or easily found yourself. Simply posting web links doesn’t make something true either. And it’s not my job to compensate for your lack of a basic education.

 

[Mersenne]

I graduated magna cum laude with a BA in history and minors in philosophy, theology, and English literature in May 1996. You?

From where? Were they even accredited? Because I think I’ve clearly demonstrated your lack of even the basic skills a historian should have. Not suprising theology came along with that. You probably went to some religious school which is still debating whether or not to teach that the earth is round.

You keep saying that, and yet haven’t provided a single actual example.

I’ve provided numerous.

You haven’t clearly shown anything. You’ve merely made claims without substantiating those claims. When challenged, you resort to insults and then merely repeating the unsubstantiated claims.

It’s easy to make it look that way when you edit out the substance of my posts.

Which is relevant to Paul’s situation how?

Which is relevent to the original objection you raised. Only now do you bring this up after I shot down your straw man. Debate honestly or don’t bother.

 

[mlchance]

From where? Were they even accredited? Because I think I’ve clearly demonstrated your lack of even the basic skills a historian should have. Not suprising theology came along with that. You probably went to some religious school which is still debating whether or not to teach that the earth is round.

I graduated from the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, one of the top private universities in the southern U.S. You?

I’ve provided numerous.

No, you haven’t.

It’s easy to make it look that way when you edit out the substance of my posts.

If I edited the substance out of your posts, there’d be nothing left to them at all.

Which is relevent to the original objection you raised. Only now do you bring this up after I shot down your straw man. Debate honestly or don’t bother.

At this point, you’ve become rather incoherent. Since it is apparently impossible to debate honestly with you given your persistent refusal to actually debate, I guess I’ll take you advice and ignore you.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated. This thread is now closed.
MF