Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
OK, I thought so. and I believe that what we are dealing with is en echo of an ancient hearsay, I believe that like courts we must apply the hearsay rule here as well.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection
- Thread starter kobayashi
- Start date
OK, I thought so. and I believe that what we are dealing with is en echo of an ancient hearsay, I believe that like courts we must apply the hearsay rule here as well.
Dezzie
Well-Known Member
None of the other beliefs would exist either if something wasn't "true". Notice how there are so many... Makes one wonder...
I am surprised at all the feedback I've gotten. It is difficult to respond to everything everyone is saying (although I would love to) so I am going to make a general response which is broken down into smaller sections, which gives me the chance to post when I have time (as opposed to trying to post everything at once). I think I'll break it down like this:
1) The meaning of 'resurrection' in the ancient world
2) Jesus' death by crucifixion
3) The appearances to the disciples
4) The empty tomb
5) The conversions of Paul and James
6) The improbability of miracles
It might be broken up a little more than that but that's what I'll try to stick to. What I will reply to here is the idea that hallucinations can be group experiences. A hallucination is, by definition, something that happens within the mind of the one experiencing the hallucination. When someone hallucinates, they are seeing something that isn't real (meaning it does not really exist in the external world). In order for an entire group of people to have the same hallucination, something external to their minds would have to be causing it. That is, there would be an objective source of the hallucination. If the disciples all experienced the same hallucination of a risen Jesus, the question we must ask is what was the cause of that experience? Something outside of their minds caused them to see something that may not have been real.
Mestemia posted this citation: "Culture can influence people to the degree that people will see things that do not exist: It can cause group hallucination."
Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values by Yi-fu Tuan, pg 246.
If I am understanding the author correctly, he is not referring to an actual, visual hallucination (literally seeing something that is not there), but is using hallucination as a metaphor for what culture can do. In other words, he might say that, apart from cultural values, we might not see anything wrong with one man stealing from another man (would we call it 'stealing'?) but since our culture tells us that stealing is wrong, we 'see' that event as stealing, as wrong. (I wouldn't agree with this assessment but it seems like what the author is getting at. Perhaps more context on the quote would help.) If this is what the author is talking about, this certainly isn't the same thing as literally 'seeing something that isn't there', which is what we're talking about when we discuss whether or not the disciples (and Paul and James) all hallucinated that a formerly dead man had now been raised to life.
A more authoritative citation would be from someone in the field of psychology who attests to the possibility of group hallucination.
I won't say more about this hallucination theory until I get to talking about the appearances, but I will say this: If we're determining what most likely happened that caused the origin of Christianity to unfold the way it did, we ought to acknowledge the extreme improbability of groups of people (including individuals at separate times, including a former persecutor and a former skeptic) all having the same hallucination.
Based on what I just said I am well aware that someone will probably respond by saying, "But an actual supernatural resurrection would certainly be more improbable than that." I will address that in one of my later posts. But let's not pretend like the hallucination theory isn't so improbable as to require an extraordinary amount of faith in and of itself.
1) The meaning of 'resurrection' in the ancient world
2) Jesus' death by crucifixion
3) The appearances to the disciples
4) The empty tomb
5) The conversions of Paul and James
6) The improbability of miracles
It might be broken up a little more than that but that's what I'll try to stick to. What I will reply to here is the idea that hallucinations can be group experiences. A hallucination is, by definition, something that happens within the mind of the one experiencing the hallucination. When someone hallucinates, they are seeing something that isn't real (meaning it does not really exist in the external world). In order for an entire group of people to have the same hallucination, something external to their minds would have to be causing it. That is, there would be an objective source of the hallucination. If the disciples all experienced the same hallucination of a risen Jesus, the question we must ask is what was the cause of that experience? Something outside of their minds caused them to see something that may not have been real.
Mestemia posted this citation: "Culture can influence people to the degree that people will see things that do not exist: It can cause group hallucination."
Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values by Yi-fu Tuan, pg 246.
If I am understanding the author correctly, he is not referring to an actual, visual hallucination (literally seeing something that is not there), but is using hallucination as a metaphor for what culture can do. In other words, he might say that, apart from cultural values, we might not see anything wrong with one man stealing from another man (would we call it 'stealing'?) but since our culture tells us that stealing is wrong, we 'see' that event as stealing, as wrong. (I wouldn't agree with this assessment but it seems like what the author is getting at. Perhaps more context on the quote would help.) If this is what the author is talking about, this certainly isn't the same thing as literally 'seeing something that isn't there', which is what we're talking about when we discuss whether or not the disciples (and Paul and James) all hallucinated that a formerly dead man had now been raised to life.
A more authoritative citation would be from someone in the field of psychology who attests to the possibility of group hallucination.
I won't say more about this hallucination theory until I get to talking about the appearances, but I will say this: If we're determining what most likely happened that caused the origin of Christianity to unfold the way it did, we ought to acknowledge the extreme improbability of groups of people (including individuals at separate times, including a former persecutor and a former skeptic) all having the same hallucination.
Based on what I just said I am well aware that someone will probably respond by saying, "But an actual supernatural resurrection would certainly be more improbable than that." I will address that in one of my later posts. But let's not pretend like the hallucination theory isn't so improbable as to require an extraordinary amount of faith in and of itself.
Smoke
Done here.
(Sigh.)
At Salem in 1692, sworn witnesses told of having seen Sarah Good fly through the air riding a stick. In England, over a period of 150 years, hundreds of witnesses reported sightings of Spring-Heeled Jack. At Knock in Ireland in 1879, fifteen people witnessed the appearance of the Mother of God, St. Joseph and St. John. At Fatima in 1917, 70,000 people reported having seen the sun change colors and dance across the sky. In the U.S. in the 20th century, dozens of people reported having been kidnaped by extraterrestrials.
Do you think the most likely explanation for all these things is that all those people experienced what they thought they experienced? Or does it seem more likely that there's some psychological explanation?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Ditto
Sorry for the delay in responding to this question. I was planning on addressing this in one of the later posts.
I think each event has to be examined separately. If it's true that Jesus died on the cross, that his followers had experienced appearances, that the tomb was empty, etc, those facts (and I will try to show why I think they're facts in those later posts I mentioned) need to be addressed, regardless of what we can about Salem, Spring Heeled Jack, etc. I don't know enough about those other cases to form a solid opinion about what it really was. I don't personally believe that there was a real witch problem in Salem, and from what I remember reading a long time ago, the Spring Heeled Jack thing is an interesting mystery but it very well could be an embellished tale. Do I think there's a psychological cause? Maybe. I wouldn't believe that a bunch of people witnessed the same hallucination, unless we could determine that they were subject to external conditions that would have produced similar effects in all their minds (like someone so afraid of witches that they mistook something for a witch, or perhaps even saw something that wasn't there).
Why do I reject the hallucination theory in the case of the disciples? I will certainly give a fuller explanation later, but even if it was possible that all of the original disciples had the same hallucination, alone or in groups, on various occasions (and again, I will explain why I think it was the original disciples who claimed these things), it still would not explain the conversion of a persecutor or of a skeptic James. If the disciples were so distraught over Jesus' death that they made themselves imagine to have seen him alive, there is no reason as to why this would have had an effect on a hardened skeptic like James, or a persecutor like Paul - both devout Jews. (There is non-biblical evidence for this last point which I will raise later as well.)
If we try to come up with an alternate theory for what would have changed Paul's mind (e.g., conversion disorder, which is itself full of problems), we are then forming a combination theory, which is even more improbable than any one of these troubled theories by itself, because it raises the improbability. Furthermore, there would still be the evidence of the empty tomb itself. To add another further theory makes the whole solution even more improbable (that is, if each part of the solution is itself flawed as I will attempt to show).
I believe in the resurrection, but I don't automatically believe that every other bizarre story must therefore be true (I reject many other miracle stories.) Even if there are other well-attested miracle stories, this does not challenge my view of the resurrection, because if God can raise Jesus from the dead, then he certainly can do things for other groups of people at other points in history. What I am talking about here is specific information regarding the event that the early Christians claimed was their reason for being Christians. In my later posts, I will present (as best I can given the limited nature of these boards) the evidence for the five points I listed, and discuss more fully the meaning of 'resurrection' when the early Christians used it, and the whole issue of miracles and probability (since many people seem to think that any naturalistic explanation, no matter how implausible, must be more likely than the idea that a miracle happened, and I don't think this is necessarily the case).
1) The Meaning of Resurrection in Early Christianity
2) Jesus died on a cross
3) His tomb was found empty
4) His disciples had experiences in which they believed they had seen Jesus alive.
5) The persecutor Paul and skeptic James converted to Christian faith on the basis of similar experiences.
6) The alleged improbability of miracles.
(skip to the bottom for summary of points)
I'd like to address the issue of dying and rising gods in various pagan beliefs: Many of the examples that are usually given turn out, on closer inspection not to be talking about a 'resurrection' at all. For example, Aesculapius was struck by lightning and ascended to heaven - hardly the same thing as dying and then being brought back to life as is the case with the Jesus story. The first clear parallel to the Jesus story of a resurrection does not come until more than a century after the time of Jesus. The argument that the Jesus story was influenced by these pagan myths is not taken seriously by scholarship today. In any case, the main reason why I don't think those dying-rising god stories are relevant (even if it were shown that some of them with real resurrection parallels predate Christianity): Those stories were told as myths about legendary figures in the distant past. The stories about divine emperors and such never contained resurrection in the sense of dying and rising, so they don't really apply here. Furthermore, the pagans who told these myths never believed that resurrection was something that humans would experience. The prevailing view among pagans (by which I mean the non-Jewish world) was that when you die, your soul goes to a gloomy (or perhaps restful) afterlife with no hope of returning to your body. There was of course some belief in reincarnation, but this was different from resurrection in that, with resurrection, there is continuity between the one who dies and the one who comes back to life. In reincarnation, you don't return to your former body; you begin as a new person altogether. Having (hopefully) cleared that up, we can get a better idea of what 'resurrection' language meant when the early Christians used it.
I've already argued that pagans universally denied resurrection. What I mean by this is that no one in the pagan world believed that, after people died, there was any hope of returning to life in a physical, bodily sense. In any case, many pagan philosophers would not find such a thing appealing, since the body was often treated like a prison-house for the soul. When they denied resurrection, they were not denying life-after-death, but a two-stage event better described as life after 'life after death'; resurrection involved the second of these two stages. In the world of second-Temple Judaism, there were those who denied any kind of afterlife, those who believed in a disembodied immortality for the soul, and those who believed in resurrection (this two-stage event in which a person was raised into a renewed physical, bodily existence). Note: 'resurrection' language was never used to denote the second of these positions. There simply was no such thing as a 'non-bodily' resurrection. Resurrection always referred literally to a concrete, bodily event. Once you understand that resurrection always referred to a two-stage event (since resurrection was something that would not happen until the end of history) you can see that it would be quite strange for it to mean anything other than a physical event. Furthermore, no one ever believed that one person would be raised from the dead individually before the end of history. It was unheard of.
When the early Christians proclaimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead (I will discuss evidence for this in #4 of the posts above), there is no question about how their hearers would have understood them. Nobody would have automatically assumed that they were merely referring to his 'exaltation' into heaven.
Having said that, what do we find when we look at our earliest written Christian source, Paul, who is usually targeted for having a non-physical view of resurrection? I will limit myself to those letters that are universally acknowledged as authentic letters of Paul. In certain passages, Paul shows that he models the future resurrection of all believers on the resurrection of Jesus himself (e.g., 1 Cor. 15.23, Christ as the "firstfruits" of what is to come). In many passages it is abundantly clear that Paul believes in resurrection as a two-stage event, that is, that the dead in Christ are still waiting for resurrection happen (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4.13-16). In other words, the dead have been dead for a while now, but Paul does not think of them as having already experienced resurrection. This would be very odd if he did not think of resurrection as a bodily event. In fact, he makes the bodily aspect of resurrection very clear in certain other passages. In Romans 8:11 Paul says, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you." (Note the word "also".)
In Acts 17 Paul quotes from a third century BC poet. It doesn't logically follow that just because something is quoted in the New Testament, it must have been invented by the NT writers. In the same way, most scholars believe that the NT writers make use of early Christian oral traditions, which go back closer to the time of Jesus' death. The book of Acts in particular contains several sermon summaries which are usually dated to within twenty years of Jesus' death. In two of these summaries (Acts 2 and 13), the speakers clearly state that David died and his corpse experienced corruption or decay, but that Jesus' corpse did not experience corruption. Here, physical resurrection is clearly in view.
What does all of this prove? NOT that Jesus must have truly been raised from the dead. What this does prove is that when Paul and the early Christians proclaimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they meant it in the bodily sense. Why is this important? Well it shows that the common view that Paul and the disciples (or whoever the early Christians were, and whoever wrote the NT) believed in 'resurrection' as a non-bodily event is simply not true. What about the point about resurrection being a two-stage view? Why is this significant? Because it creates tremendous problems for anyone who wants to argue that the early Christians, in speaking of Christ's resurrection, were merely speaking of his exaltation to heaven. If 'resurrection' was mere exaltation, it would happen immediately upon death. Certainly there were later Christian writers who believed this, but notice that they no longer upheld resurrection as a two-stage view. Luke (and John, incidentally) both differentiate Jesus' resurrection from his ascension.
Phew! Sorry to make this so long but it seems to be necessary. I'll post more the next time I get the chance. By the way if you want to see a REALLY in-depth study of resurrection belief in the first-century world I highly recommend NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God.
SUMMARY OF POINTS
1) dying-rising god stories lack real parallels to Jesus story; those who told the stories did not believe in resurrection as a reality for human beings
2) the non-Jewish world universally denied resurrection; many Jews believed in resurrection as a two-stage event involving the body of the deceased
3) Paul believed in resurrection as a two-stage event involving the body of the deceased (and believed Jesus had been raised bodily)
4) Other early Christians clearly affirmed bodily resurrection (Acts 2, 13)
5) Early Christians (including Paul) were not using resurrection language to affirm Jesus' mere 'exaltation' to heaven
2) Jesus died on a cross
3) His tomb was found empty
4) His disciples had experiences in which they believed they had seen Jesus alive.
5) The persecutor Paul and skeptic James converted to Christian faith on the basis of similar experiences.
6) The alleged improbability of miracles.
(skip to the bottom for summary of points)
I'd like to address the issue of dying and rising gods in various pagan beliefs: Many of the examples that are usually given turn out, on closer inspection not to be talking about a 'resurrection' at all. For example, Aesculapius was struck by lightning and ascended to heaven - hardly the same thing as dying and then being brought back to life as is the case with the Jesus story. The first clear parallel to the Jesus story of a resurrection does not come until more than a century after the time of Jesus. The argument that the Jesus story was influenced by these pagan myths is not taken seriously by scholarship today. In any case, the main reason why I don't think those dying-rising god stories are relevant (even if it were shown that some of them with real resurrection parallels predate Christianity): Those stories were told as myths about legendary figures in the distant past. The stories about divine emperors and such never contained resurrection in the sense of dying and rising, so they don't really apply here. Furthermore, the pagans who told these myths never believed that resurrection was something that humans would experience. The prevailing view among pagans (by which I mean the non-Jewish world) was that when you die, your soul goes to a gloomy (or perhaps restful) afterlife with no hope of returning to your body. There was of course some belief in reincarnation, but this was different from resurrection in that, with resurrection, there is continuity between the one who dies and the one who comes back to life. In reincarnation, you don't return to your former body; you begin as a new person altogether. Having (hopefully) cleared that up, we can get a better idea of what 'resurrection' language meant when the early Christians used it.
I've already argued that pagans universally denied resurrection. What I mean by this is that no one in the pagan world believed that, after people died, there was any hope of returning to life in a physical, bodily sense. In any case, many pagan philosophers would not find such a thing appealing, since the body was often treated like a prison-house for the soul. When they denied resurrection, they were not denying life-after-death, but a two-stage event better described as life after 'life after death'; resurrection involved the second of these two stages. In the world of second-Temple Judaism, there were those who denied any kind of afterlife, those who believed in a disembodied immortality for the soul, and those who believed in resurrection (this two-stage event in which a person was raised into a renewed physical, bodily existence). Note: 'resurrection' language was never used to denote the second of these positions. There simply was no such thing as a 'non-bodily' resurrection. Resurrection always referred literally to a concrete, bodily event. Once you understand that resurrection always referred to a two-stage event (since resurrection was something that would not happen until the end of history) you can see that it would be quite strange for it to mean anything other than a physical event. Furthermore, no one ever believed that one person would be raised from the dead individually before the end of history. It was unheard of.
When the early Christians proclaimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead (I will discuss evidence for this in #4 of the posts above), there is no question about how their hearers would have understood them. Nobody would have automatically assumed that they were merely referring to his 'exaltation' into heaven.
Having said that, what do we find when we look at our earliest written Christian source, Paul, who is usually targeted for having a non-physical view of resurrection? I will limit myself to those letters that are universally acknowledged as authentic letters of Paul. In certain passages, Paul shows that he models the future resurrection of all believers on the resurrection of Jesus himself (e.g., 1 Cor. 15.23, Christ as the "firstfruits" of what is to come). In many passages it is abundantly clear that Paul believes in resurrection as a two-stage event, that is, that the dead in Christ are still waiting for resurrection happen (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4.13-16). In other words, the dead have been dead for a while now, but Paul does not think of them as having already experienced resurrection. This would be very odd if he did not think of resurrection as a bodily event. In fact, he makes the bodily aspect of resurrection very clear in certain other passages. In Romans 8:11 Paul says, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you." (Note the word "also".)
In Acts 17 Paul quotes from a third century BC poet. It doesn't logically follow that just because something is quoted in the New Testament, it must have been invented by the NT writers. In the same way, most scholars believe that the NT writers make use of early Christian oral traditions, which go back closer to the time of Jesus' death. The book of Acts in particular contains several sermon summaries which are usually dated to within twenty years of Jesus' death. In two of these summaries (Acts 2 and 13), the speakers clearly state that David died and his corpse experienced corruption or decay, but that Jesus' corpse did not experience corruption. Here, physical resurrection is clearly in view.
What does all of this prove? NOT that Jesus must have truly been raised from the dead. What this does prove is that when Paul and the early Christians proclaimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they meant it in the bodily sense. Why is this important? Well it shows that the common view that Paul and the disciples (or whoever the early Christians were, and whoever wrote the NT) believed in 'resurrection' as a non-bodily event is simply not true. What about the point about resurrection being a two-stage view? Why is this significant? Because it creates tremendous problems for anyone who wants to argue that the early Christians, in speaking of Christ's resurrection, were merely speaking of his exaltation to heaven. If 'resurrection' was mere exaltation, it would happen immediately upon death. Certainly there were later Christian writers who believed this, but notice that they no longer upheld resurrection as a two-stage view. Luke (and John, incidentally) both differentiate Jesus' resurrection from his ascension.
Phew! Sorry to make this so long but it seems to be necessary. I'll post more the next time I get the chance. By the way if you want to see a REALLY in-depth study of resurrection belief in the first-century world I highly recommend NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God.
SUMMARY OF POINTS
1) dying-rising god stories lack real parallels to Jesus story; those who told the stories did not believe in resurrection as a reality for human beings
2) the non-Jewish world universally denied resurrection; many Jews believed in resurrection as a two-stage event involving the body of the deceased
3) Paul believed in resurrection as a two-stage event involving the body of the deceased (and believed Jesus had been raised bodily)
4) Other early Christians clearly affirmed bodily resurrection (Acts 2, 13)
5) Early Christians (including Paul) were not using resurrection language to affirm Jesus' mere 'exaltation' to heaven
Last edited:
1) The Meaning of Resurrection in Early Christianity
2) Jesus died on a cross
3) His tomb was found empty
4) His disciples had experiences in which they believed they had seen Jesus alive.
5) The persecutor Paul and skeptic James converted to Christian faith on the basis of similar experiences.
6) The alleged improbability of miracles.
I'll start by saying that even the radical liberal scholar of the Jesus Seminar, J.D. Crossan (cited elsewhere in this board) affirms that Jesus died on the cross. He says, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145). Why is this so?
First, it is reported by multiple, independent sources. These include the New Testament sources (the four gospels - at least two sources depending on your theory of how the gospels relate to each other) and the letters of Paul, etc. These also include Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 18:64), Tacitus (Annals 15:44), Lucian of Samasota (The Death of Peregrine 11-13). There are also important mentions in a letter from Mara Bar-Serapion and the Babylonian Talmud.
Second, it is very unlikely that Jesus could have survived crucifixion. This was verified by a study in the Journal of the American Medical Associate in the 3/21/1986 issue, which elaborated on the details of crucifixion. I'm relying on my memory here so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is Josephus who reports two individuals who were allowed to be taken off of Roman crosses alive, but this of course does not mean that they could have survived had they remained on the cross. Furthermore, one of the two men died from his wounds anyway.
Imagine that in spite of what we know about crucifixion, the unthinkable happened, and Jesus survived his death. Could he have convinced anyone, in his physical state, that he was the risen Lord who had conquered death?
Finally, theories about someone else being made to look like Jesus and crucified in his place are based on documents that come much later than the four gospels in the Bible. I think it would be bizarre to accept such late testimony over even the testimony of the gospels, which were written within a generation of the eyewitnesses to the events we're discussing. Historically, it wouldn't make sense. I challenge anyone who takes this view to provide better evidence than what I've listed.
SUMMARY OF POINTS
1) Jesus' death on the cross is multiply attested in both biblical and non-biblical sources
2) Our current medical knowledge and our historical knowledge of crucifixion makes it very unlikely that Jesus could have survived.
3) If Jesus had survived, he could not convince anyone of his resurrection due to his physical condition
4) The theory that someone else was crucified is based on much later sources. More evidence would be needed.
2) Jesus died on a cross
3) His tomb was found empty
4) His disciples had experiences in which they believed they had seen Jesus alive.
5) The persecutor Paul and skeptic James converted to Christian faith on the basis of similar experiences.
6) The alleged improbability of miracles.
I'll start by saying that even the radical liberal scholar of the Jesus Seminar, J.D. Crossan (cited elsewhere in this board) affirms that Jesus died on the cross. He says, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145). Why is this so?
First, it is reported by multiple, independent sources. These include the New Testament sources (the four gospels - at least two sources depending on your theory of how the gospels relate to each other) and the letters of Paul, etc. These also include Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 18:64), Tacitus (Annals 15:44), Lucian of Samasota (The Death of Peregrine 11-13). There are also important mentions in a letter from Mara Bar-Serapion and the Babylonian Talmud.
Second, it is very unlikely that Jesus could have survived crucifixion. This was verified by a study in the Journal of the American Medical Associate in the 3/21/1986 issue, which elaborated on the details of crucifixion. I'm relying on my memory here so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is Josephus who reports two individuals who were allowed to be taken off of Roman crosses alive, but this of course does not mean that they could have survived had they remained on the cross. Furthermore, one of the two men died from his wounds anyway.
Imagine that in spite of what we know about crucifixion, the unthinkable happened, and Jesus survived his death. Could he have convinced anyone, in his physical state, that he was the risen Lord who had conquered death?
Finally, theories about someone else being made to look like Jesus and crucified in his place are based on documents that come much later than the four gospels in the Bible. I think it would be bizarre to accept such late testimony over even the testimony of the gospels, which were written within a generation of the eyewitnesses to the events we're discussing. Historically, it wouldn't make sense. I challenge anyone who takes this view to provide better evidence than what I've listed.
SUMMARY OF POINTS
1) Jesus' death on the cross is multiply attested in both biblical and non-biblical sources
2) Our current medical knowledge and our historical knowledge of crucifixion makes it very unlikely that Jesus could have survived.
3) If Jesus had survived, he could not convince anyone of his resurrection due to his physical condition
4) The theory that someone else was crucified is based on much later sources. More evidence would be needed.
The Testimonium Flavianum is likely a forgery. The version with Jesus performing miracles and being crucified somehow wasn't there when Origen cites Josephus in the 2nd Century, but suddenly appears for the first time when Eusebius cites him in the 4th.
Tacitus simply recorded the beliefs of Christians. He was in no position to confirm or deny their accounts.
Again, he recorded the beliefs of Christians without being able to confirm or deny them.
Don't know the letter, but assuming you're talking about the reference to a man named "Yeshu" in the Babylonian Talmud, it doesn't match the Christian version at all. For one thing, it says he was imprisoned for a month before being executed. For another, it says that the reason this was done (instead of executing him right away) was because Yeshu had friends in the government, and the Sanhedrin tried to find an excuse not to execute him.
So... it seems to me that you have one forgery, one account that just doesn't make sense (at least applied to Jesus) and some very good evidence that the early Christians believed that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. However, this is not actually evidence that Jesus really was crucified and resurrected.
So, then, why the Roman practice of breaking the limbs of crucifixion victims to hurry death along? This is referred to obliquely in the Biblical account, when the soldiers go to break Jesus' legs but find he's already dead.
Assuming it's the same person, not without substantial time to heal, I would think. However, since in the Gospel version, the disciples at first didn't recognize him as the Jesus they knew, I'm not sure why we would assume that the Jesus on the cross and the Jesus on the beach were the same person... if either one actually existed at all.
Out of curiosity, what's your explanation for the disciples not recognizing Jesus in John 21?
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
You seem to have in mind a plan for setting forth your case without any substantial response to anybody else's comments. For instance, going to great lengths to "prove" the crucifixion even though there's not really anybody here challenging the crucifixion, and your continued assurances that you will make your points in greater detail later. We are not being invited to a discussion, but to a lecture. While that may be an interesting exercise for you, it's not at all interesting to me, and I suspect I'm not the only one who's likely to drift away in boredom.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You hit that nail on the head.
In fact, the only reason I stopped in this time is that I saw you were the last person who posted,
Heh... something just occurred to me:
And examining your version:
Could anyone have been crucified, died, been buried in a tomb, been resurrected and appeared to people glorified and restored?
It would only be possible with some sort of magic.
So... is there any particular reason that you allow magic as an explanation for your version but not for others?
It's quite likely he could have survived... if he had some sort of magic.
Sure he could, if he used some sort of magic.
And examining your version:
Could anyone have been crucified, died, been buried in a tomb, been resurrected and appeared to people glorified and restored?
It would only be possible with some sort of magic.
So... is there any particular reason that you allow magic as an explanation for your version but not for others?
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
It seems a more reasonable reaction in my opinion. If I saw a dead man walking and talking, I'd probably hesistate for a second and see it more likely that I was hallucinating than actually seeing Jesus. That......and there is lessons to be taught by having the disciples not recognize Jesus (I'll withhold from boring people).
Besides, it's not like they continued to not recognize Him; they eventually came around to recognize Him. I think this is often missed. If you really don't recognize someone, you don't give in and say "well, it sort of looks like him". People usually continue with there suspicions......especially regarding a figure like Jesus.
It's actually there human reactions that makes me want to believe it even more.
Hmm. My interpretation has always been that the man on the beach didn't look like Jesus, but convinced the apostles by the way he talked and acted.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Not me...especially if you study how weak and human-like they were at times. They ran, snitched, were scared, etc....
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Simply his "opinion"...tis all. Just because he said so doesn't make it so. The crucifixion is not a verifiable event. Most that have reported as if they knew are regarded as forgery, unconfirmed opinions or speculation.
And their all either considered forgery or author opinion. The gospel of Luke out right says..He gathered his information from this who said they were eyewitnesses. There's no indication as to how he verified what they were telling him. He could have, as some suggested, copied from Mark and added a few of his thoughts.
Sure he could. It's generally accepted that a person could survive a few days like that. We have no idea if the level of torture was less or more for the biblical Yeshua compared to anyone else in that situation. Your scripture gives an indication he was drugged, which probably rendered him unconscious thus appearing lifeless, he was taken down quickly...he was placed in a tomb where 75/100 pounds of Myrrh (an astringent to clean wounds and stop bleeding) and Aloe (ancient and modern plant liquid used to heal wounds). His body was dressed with this stuff just like they do for burn victims (NOTE: Jews washed the body with water and wrapped in linen). Myrrh and Aloe was expensive and would not have been used like this. The woman/women (depending on which scripture you want to believe showed up to anoint (rub) the body. In Jewish culture this is not permitted. Women perform the burial right on women and men perform the rights on men. At this point there is no need to anoint (rub) a rotting corps (being in the tomb a couple days). The procedure supposedly had already been performed. When this procedure is done for the dead the don't touch the body for up to a year. So you see, there's reason to suspect he survived.
Means nothing other than some have a higher tolerance to pain....
As you read his appearance to them all that you know is that he appeared to them in the flesh and starving for food so they fed him. Interesting how he could conquer death but not hunger.
As well as some of the "historical" testimony you provided
Last edited:
Point taken. Many people responded to me with objections all over the spectrum, and several insisted that I post all my sources. And at least one or two people had raised the theory of whether or not it was even Jesus who was crucified. I'm trying to respond to as many of the objections as I can but I don't have time to offer 'substantial responses' to every single person who posts.
Initially I was trying to respond to individual posts, but you yourself (and one or two others) got on my case for failing to respond to a specific point you had made (the post about the Salem witch trials, etc).
If no one is interested in the longer posts I'll abandon that idea and try to engage one or two people in dialogue, but I really won't have the time to respond to all the objections being presented here (and then of course will have to deal with accusations that certain points are being "ignored"). So which do you say is the better way to go?