Alternative "theories" on how the Resurrection was a fake

[PhilVaz]

patg << can you show me a history text which states that it occured? There aren’t any because the science of historical research follows rules of evidence and analysis. >>

That’s where William Lane Craig’s debates enter in. Have you listened to them all? Craig says the proposition “God raised Jesus from the dead” explains these three (or four) facts of history (sometimes Craig leaves out the first one, and just mentions 2, 3, 4):

(1) Jesus was crucified, was dead, and was buried in a tomb that was well-known (the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea)

(2) Jesus’ tomb was found empty a few days later by a group of his women followers

(3) Jesus appeared alive to his disciples and to non-believers over a period of 40 days after his death, in various appearances, both to groups of people and to individuals

(4) the origin and spread of the Christian faith occurred shortly thereafter

The proposition “God raised Jesus from the dead” and these four facts only assume two additional things:

(A) God exists, and in the context of Judeo-Christian belief, has the power to raise people from the dead

(B) the general historical reliability of the New Testament (which is where we get these four facts, although the crucifixion and the spread of the Christian faith can be verified in sources outside the New Testament – namely, Josephus, and Tacitus, among others).

Now which of the four facts or which of the two assumptions do skeptics normally deny? If they are atheists, they deny assumption (A) which (for them) makes the resurrection explanation impossible. They have to come up with another explanation (one of those listed in the first post of the thread) or they simply say “we just don’t know what happened.”

Other liberal Christian scholars (like Crossan, or Borg, or Spong) who reject the literal resurrection but at least affirm God exists, deny assumption (B) which allows them to reject “historical facts” (2) and/or (3) above, or at least re-interpret them.

The best book by skeptics is the 2005 collection of essays Empty Tomb edited by Lowder/Price (published by Prometheus Books). There is an online PDF book titled This Joyful Eastertide that responds to it as well. Not sure of the quality, still need to read them both carefully. Very long!

Phil P

 

[mlchance]

From just the historicity of the text alone, there were well over 500 witnesses to the risen Christ.

When arguing that there is no historical evidence for Christ’s Resurrection, one must rule out the entire New Testament. That there is no compelling reason to do so is quite beside the point.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mersenne]

That doesn’t hold water. If the Resurrection is a myth, it rose and spread across the Roman Empire within the lives of people who witnessed Jesus’ death,

No it didn’t, it was many generations afterwards.

could’ve produced the body to refute the story, et cetera.

Not likely, they didn’t have the internet back then, it was nearly impossible to verify a story from one city over, or he could have just died out in the desert somewhere, etc etc

There is not a single incident of a layer of myth being added to a person’s life under such circumstances. Every single figure you examine (Mohammed, the Buddha, et cetera) had myths added to their life stories generations after their deaths.

Yup, just like jesus.

 

[Mersenne]

And they let themselves be brutally murdered for their little myth.

Like people have for all myths throughout the history of humankind.

Besides, the circumstances in which they were being killed, repenting wouldn’t have saved them, nor was this something they predicted was going to happen.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

No it didn’t, it was many generations afterwards.

**Response: You are woefully **decades behind in scholarship on this point. The original “Enlightenment” assertions of "mythologizing"were assuming 100-200 years after the events. Even secular scholarship has had to admit 1st century authorship for the great majority of the NT. Paul writing a scant 17 years after the Ressurection writes about it matter-of-factly, a given, a common basis of belief.

Not likely, they didn’t have the internet back then, it was nearly impossible to verify a story from one city over, or he could have just died out in the desert somewhere, etc etc

Response: There was no verification of anything before the Internet??? Travel in the Roman world was common, reasonably safe and there was a decent postal system. The “isolated communites of believers” just dosnt wash

Yup, just like jesus

Even very liberal scholars are starting to recognize all four of the gospels were written BEFORE the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD–when the great majority of the witnesses were alive

.

 

[patg]

From just the historicity of the text alone

The what? Just what “historicity” are you referring to? Things that are historical have independent evidence, first person evidence, multiple attestation, and are not only documented by those who were already deeply involved as followers. The gospels have none of that.

, there were well over 500 witnesses to the risen Christ.

Really? Where are the reports from those witnesses, how many where objectively independent? There are actually only third person references to confusing and contradictory appearance accounts, none of which constitute historical evidence.

You need to read the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI’s ***Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***to see what the Chruch actually says about the historicity of the gospels.

 

[patg]

When arguing that there is no historical evidence for Christ’s Resurrection, one must rule out the entire New Testament. That there is no compelling reason to do so is quite beside the point.

It would be a lot simpler just to read the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI’s ***Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***to see what the Chruch actually says about the historicity of the gospels. And while there may be a historical core to many of the gospel stories, there is no compelling reason to assume they are literal history - and doing so is sometimes an impediment to usnderstanding.

 

[mlchance]

No it didn’t, it was many generations afterwards.

And, of course, you have evidence to back up this assertion that somehow explains how generations passed while at the same time the entire NT was written by circa A.D. 120 (and a sizeable hunk of it was written by circa A.D. 80), with neither date supporting your alleged “many generations” hypothesis.

So, please, present away.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The what? Just what “historicity” are you referring to?

Scripture has historical value. To deny the historical value of the text is illogical. I was responding to someone who said there is “no historical evidence.” Scripture itself is historical evidence.

 

[Spirithound]

Like people have for all myths throughout the history of humankind.

Besides, the circumstances in which they were being killed, repenting wouldn’t have saved them, nor was this something they predicted was going to happen.

People have died for myths. People don’t, however die for myths that they KNOW to be myths.
Also, I’m quite certain that most of the apostles could have reasonably expected their execution would be impending upon discovery of their activities. Recall that Peter was supernaturally released from prison. What did he then do? Went right back to preaching the Good News. And even if they were cocky enough to not expect a death of some level of brutality, do you think they had good lives?

Negative.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then he ruined a lot of people’s lives.

 

[Mersenne]

Response: You are woefully decades behind in scholarship on this point. The original “Enlightenment” assertions of "mythologizing"were assuming 100-200 years after the events. Even secular scholarship has had to admit 1st century authorship for the great majority of the NT. Paul writing a scant 17 years after the Ressurection writes about it matter-of-factly, a given, a common basis of belief.

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

There was no verification of anything before the Internet??? Travel in the Roman world was common, reasonably safe and there was a decent postal system. The “isolated communites of believers” just dosnt wash

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.

 

[Mersenne]

And, of course, you have evidence to back up this assertion that somehow explains how generations passed while at the same time the entire NT was written by circa A.D. 120 (and a sizeable hunk of it was written by circa A.D. 80), with neither date supporting your alleged “many generations” hypothesis.

So, please, present away.

– Mark L. Chance.

120 AD is many generations after 30 AD.

 

[Mersenne]

People have died for myths. People don’t, however die for myths that they KNOW to be myths.

They didn’t neccisarily know. It could have been a myth that built up slowly over time. Like most other myths.

Also, I’m quite certain that most of the apostles could have reasonably expected their execution would be impending upon discovery of their activities. Recall that Peter was supernaturally released from prison. What did he then do? Went right back to preaching the Good News.

So yeah, as long as you assume that god and jesus exists and all the myth surrounding him is true, then it lends good evidence that it’s true.

And even if they were cocky enough to not expect a death of some level of brutality, do you think they had good lives?

I think there is plenty of motivation for people to want to be cult leaders, even if in the long run it’s a bad idea. And death didn’t just come to anyone who led a cult, they were used as a scapegoat by the state, an occurence they may not have seen coming, and a circumstance where repenting or admiting that you made it all up wouldn’t save you.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then he ruined a lot of people’s lives.

He sure did.

 

[Spirithound]

They didn’t neccisarily know. It could have been a myth that built up slowly over time. Like most other myths.

No, my comments are restricted solely to the apostles. If I ever become a martyr, then you can think what you will about what I know, but the apostles KNEW. They were there.

So yeah, as long as you assume that god and jesus exists and all the myth surrounding him is true, then it lends good evidence that it’s true.

Again, just the apostles. They were there. They certainly knew that Jesus existed.

I think there is plenty of motivation for people to want to be cult leaders, even if in the long run it’s a bad idea. And death didn’t just come to anyone who led a cult, they were used as a scapegoat by the state, an occurence they may not have seen coming, and a circumstance where repenting or admiting that you made it all up wouldn’t save you.

Cult leaders live in mansions, raise armies, get money, women, and drugs. They brainwash people not to “do as that man did”, but DO AS I DO. Now eat your rice and drink your kool-ade. The apostles were imprisoned (Peter escaped, he continued doing what busted him in the first place), they were stoned (Paul survived, went back into the city and preached the same thing over again), they were the servants of the servants of God.
Humble pie doesn’t taste very good.

 

[mlchance]

Besides, myths have grown up around people WHILE THEY WERE STILL ALIVE.

Document a few examples.

120 AD is many generations after 30 AD.

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

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?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[patg]

Scripture has historical value. To deny the historical value of the text is illogical. I was responding to someone who said there is “no historical evidence.” Scripture itself is historical evidence.

It may have some historical core but it is very weak evidence. If you want to consider it to be strong evidence, then you also have to acknowledge that all other ancient writings are historical evidence for what they describe - and considering what many of them say, I doubt anyone wants to go there.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mers << Paul didn’t even seem to be pushing the idea of a physically existing Christ for quite awhile. >>

1 Thess 2:14-16 – For you, brothers, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved…

1 Cor 1:13-23 – Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?… For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power…For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles…

1 Cor 2:2-8 – For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified… None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Cor 15:1ff – that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Gal 3:1,13 – You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified…Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree *.”

6:12-14 – …the cross of Christ…the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ…

Phil 2:8 – And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross!

Col 1:20; 2:14-15 – and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross… having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

1 Timothy 6:13 – In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession…

Did Pontius Pilate live on earth, or in heaven? Was this testifying before Pontius Pilate on earth, or in heaven?

Was Jesus crucified on earth, or in heaven? Did Jesus die on earth, or in heaven? Was Jesus buried on earth, or in heaven? Did baptisms take place on earth, or in heaven? Did the Romans crucify people on earth, or in heaven? Did the Jews kill Jesus on earth, or in heaven?

We also have Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:23,36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39; 13:29) and

1 Peter 2:23-24 – When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

“That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” (John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, page 145)

“Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” (Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, page 50)

We can’t get to resurrection until you concede the crucifixion of Jesus took place on earth, that he did live and die. We’re not talking a heavenly crucifixion. Do you deal with the New Testament, or ignore it like Doherty does?

Phil P*

 

[MarcoPolo]

It may have some historical core but it is very weak evidence.

Considering we have the names of many of the witnesses, followed by verification in post-Scriptural ECF writings, I’d say it’s pretty good evidence. You don’t have this pedigree with random ancient mythical stories.

 

[patg]

Considering we have the names of many of the witnesses, followed by verification in post-Scriptural ECF writings, I’d say it’s pretty good evidence.

It is actually not very good evidence at all - every scrap of it comes from “insiders” - those who were his followers during his life and who already believed in him. There is nothing objectively convincing about this type of evidence.

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)).

Another thing to note is that there are no stories of the resurection itself and no reported witnesses to the event. There are only some conflicting post-resurrection accounts.

 

[Mersenne]

No, my comments are restricted solely to the apostles. If I ever become a martyr, then you can think what you will about what I know, but the apostles KNEW. They were there.

Unless they weren’t. Again, you can’t assume that this is true as your proof that it’s true.

Cult leaders live in mansions, raise armies, get money, women, and drugs.

So the apostles were the first religious leaders to ever not do drugs and live in mansions?

They brainwash people not to “do as that man did”, but DO AS I DO.

So cult leaders never use external mythologies in their belief systems?

Humble pie doesn’t taste very good.

Yeah, so, we still assume Christ was a myth, because that by and far the most likely explination. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise. Do we even know whether or not the apostles existed? Who they were?