by John Kesler 53 Replies latest watchtower bible
The manner in which Jesus died is important because of how brutal and effective a method it was, that is why the Romans and many others used it.
It was "bad enough" that the followers that saw Jesus do miracles were cowering in doors, untill SOMETHING happened.
I think we need to remember that we can't view them as we do suicide bomber and fanatics in our day and age because they were NOT like that nor is there indication that they were like that.
Check out the Gospel of Judas and related articles about it and you'll find a pretty fascinating theory that's as likely as any.
Loftus:
. . .
[Christians] were born into a Christian culture and became believers because of cultural influences just like Muslims in Iran, or Catholics in Mexico, or Buddhists in Thailand, or Hindu's in India. They know this and yet want to maintain theirs is the correct religion anyway, just like Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists and Hindu's do when faced with this same sociological data. Christians claim that these other religions are man-made ones. But let's connect the dots here. If other people in other parts of the globe have created man-made religions and are persuaded to believe in them because they were raised in their respective cultures, then why is this not also true for their particular sect of Christianity? Why do they think they are privileged to be born in the right time and place when others are not? If there is a God why would he privilege them like this? Why? It's the natural tendency we humans have for thinking we're special, that's why. All ancient societies built temples to their gods which they thought were located directly on the center of the world. This thinking is still being embraced by Christians in many ways for they claim their geographical religion is where God has revealed himself and can be known.
Christians have so many different ways to deal with this problem but none of them has any probability at all when you stop to think. In each and every case their responses will start off by speaking in terms of what is "possible" if an Omni-God exists. Well, well, with that concept of God anything can be solved, now can't it? It's possible that God will save all people, or that God knows what he's doing, or that Christianity is exclusively true despite these sociological facts, or that God knew in advance who would not accept him and simply caused them to be born in those other parts of the globe, or that God will judge all people based upon their good works. Some of these answers are not considered evangelical answers at all and are never used elsewhere except when dealing with this specific problem. You see, possibilities are all they can punt to, not probabilities. And with such a concept of God all things are possible when defending their faith. It pretty much becomes unfalsifiable.
. . .
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/step-outside-box-and-see-it-for-what-it.html
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Indeed, not only that, if it never happened it could so easily have been rebuked- produce the Body.
Certainly the Sanhedrin said that the body was taken by the disciples, but they never pursued them or took them prisoners, which they could have done.
This all assumes that the Gospel accounts have a great deal of truth in them, rather than being myths concocted decades after the death of Jesus to perpetuate the religion.
One theory is that it is unlikely he was crucified by the Romans, rather he was stoned to death by the Jews, and the stoning of Stephen is a hidden story of what really happened to Jesus.
Of course, we will probably never know for sure, but debating as though the stories we have (Gospels) are essentially correct is more than likely a lost cause.
It is my hope that you are truly searching for answers. It is my hope and prayer that some of what I offer will help you in your search.
Jesus' followers--distraught, sad, and disillusioned--had visions in what we now call altered states of consciousness, a condition that can be induced by fasting, sleep deprivation, and fatigue.
Regarding psychological phenomena we must first define terms. If we are talking about illusions then we are dealing with distorted perceptions of reality. If we are talking about hallucinations, then we are dealing with false perceptions of something that really does not exist. If we are talking about delusions, then we have false beliefs that can be demonstrated as false once contrary information is presented.
First, hallucinations are not group occurences, but are unique to individuals, like dreams. Hallucinations do not explain the empty tomb. Hallucinations do not explain the conversion of Paul who did not have the mindset of a follower of Christ at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. Hallucinations do not explain the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, who has a skeptic, and was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus' ministry. There are too many variances in the appearances of Jesus. The appearances included men and women; they were seen by groups and individuals; they were affrimed by friend and foe; there were appearances to hard headed Peter and soft hearted Mary Magdalene; the appearances were indoors and outdoors; there was not just one appearance, but many appearances over the period of 40 days.
Second, delusions do not explain the empty tomb. Delusions do not explain the conversion of Paul. Candidates for delusions believe something so deeply that their logic gets screwed up. Paul was so commited to his Jewish faith that he was hostile to Christians. Why would Paul want to follow a rightly executed blasphemous false prophet, and lose his eternal soul, if the resurrection was a delusional event? Delusions do not explain the conversion of James the brother of Jesus for the same reasons.
If what you mean by vision, you mean an "objective" vision, then Jesus is truly risen. Jesus was actually sin but not in a physical state. Jesus then survived death and the consequences are the same as the bodily resurrection; God exists and Christianity is true. Further, this objection does not dispute the resurrection, but disputes the form of it, material or immaterial. If the visions are subjective, then they were hallucinations or delusions. I have addressed those objections above.
I think that Paul probably had a vision of Jesus also, though I am not sure of the mechanism that caused this (epilepsy, feeling of shame about persecuting Christians, etc.)
If you have any evidence of Paul suffering from epilesy please present it. While I have just completed a rather extensive study of the resurrection of Jesus, it is possible that I missed something. That said, I find no scholar that remotely hints at Paul having epilepsy.
If Paul felt any guilt over his persecution of Christians, we find no evidence of it. In fact, Paul's own writings indicate that he was rather proud of his actions against the Christians and was very content in his Judaism (Phil. 3:5-6). Even if Paul felt guilt to the point of conversion, that does not explain the Jesus' appearances to the other disciples and the conversion of James the brother of Jesus. Paul's guilt does not account for the empty tomb.
My thought is that the gospel ends this way on purpose as a way to explain why it took so long to proclaim the empty-tomb message.
This is a rather silly statement, because the "empty tomb" message was a message that the Jewish religious leaders had to account for it by bribing the tomb guards. Further, 50 days is such an incredibly loooooooong time to concoct an "empty-tomb message." Peter referenced the resurrection in his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:29-36).
whether Paul's belief that Jesus' rising as a "spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:44) meant that Jesus' physical body was left behind (thus, no empty tomb, if Jesus was even buried in a tomb) or whether he believed that Jesus' physical body was changed into a "spiritual body," whatever that meant to Paul.
Paul, and the rest of the NT writers believed in a bodily resurrection. If they had not believed that, and wished to communicate that, they had vocabulary available that would have communicated this belief.
Further, the empty tomb is a fact that has been affirmed by approximately 75% of the scholars studied by Gary Habermas (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus).
Regarding your issues with the gospels, I do not believe that they are problems. The reason is that each writer was interested not in total harmony with the other writers (which would actually be a strike against their verasity), but with communicating with his intended audience. This fact should not be held against the authors.
what happened to make the disciples believers, whether there was an empty tomb, what explains the empty tomb,
I believe that a real resurrected Jesus accounts for all of these things. It is the only event that could transform those fearful early disciples of Jesus in to men and women that turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). There was an empty tomb. Unless you have an alternative explanation, like the Jesus Seminar. What explains the empty tomb? In my opinion only the resurrection of Jesus explains the empty tomb. All other opposing theories or combination of theories fall far from offering any sort of effective explaination for the empty tomb.
how did Mark's gospel end
Based on everything scholarly I have read (liberal and conservative), Mark's gospel ends with verse 8. I don't have aproblem with it, because this is pointed out in every Bible translation, including that abomination, the New World Translation, I have read. I do not believe that the additional verses affect any core doctrine, because we have accounts that are more full in the other Gospels.
I have looked extensively at the resurrection for the past few months. My trust in the accounts has grown stronger. Stronger than before starting on this task. I hope that everyone does this, it is a task that is deeply rewarding.
What made some of Jesus' followers believe that Jesus rose from the dead? My best guess--and as E.P. Sanders says, we really don't know--is that Jesus' followers--distraught, sad, and disillusioned--had visions in what we now call altered states of consciousness, a condition that can be induced by fasting, sleep deprivation, and fatigue.
There is a lengthy and thoughtful discussion of this subject in Dale Alison's book Resurrecting Jesus. He takes an anthropological rather than psychological approach and notes how common such reports are among those who are bereaved, as well as the similarities between those experiences and the features of the gospel epiphany narratives. He also describes his own (subjective) experience. What he does is show that it need not be some especially abnormal happenstance but one that fits rather well culturally with the range of human experience.
My thought is that the gospel ends this way on purpose as a way to explain why it took so long to proclaim the empty-tomb message. (Scholars are divided about whether this is how Mark intended the gospel to end or if he had another ending--now lost--containing appearances of Jesus.)
My own opinion is that the author did not intend the gospel to end this way, and that the ending (as well as the beginning of the gospel) is missing; the evidence for both is quite compelling. But your idea is quite interesting, and one that I haven't heard much. Still, the narrative foreshadows a Galilee appearance and such an appearance need not depend on an empty tomb. I think your idea may still be possible with or without the gospel originally ending without an epiphany narrative.
When Matthew, Luke, and John wrote later, they added resurrection appearances, though they each followed different traditions regarding where Jesus appeared and to whom.
What this shows is that if the autograph was damaged (e.g. if the outermost leaf broke away), then it was damaged before it was copied and used by the later evangelists (which are dependent on Mark). It is thus noteworthy that the other two synoptic gospels disagree up to the point where the narrative of Mark starts and then they part ways again at the point where the present text of Mark ends.
Matthew followed Mark with its implied Galilee appearance (Mark 14:28, 16:7) and thus claimed that Jesus predicted (26:31-32) and fulfilled (28:7-10, 16) an appearance in Galilee, with no mention of an appearance in Jerusalem. Luke and John (except for the later-added John 21, which also has a Galilee appearance in v:1 ff) claim that Jesus appeared in Jerusalem (Luke 24/John 20), and Luke's Jesus makes no prediction about appearing in Galilee (9:22,44; 18:31-34) when speaking about his passion.
It should not be forgotten that the Gospel of Peter, which uses Mark in a manner independent of the other gospels, also has a resurrection appearance at the Sea of Galilee. Very little of it was preserved but it appears to be in the vein of John 21. Both stories imo approximate the kind of appearance that likely belonged to Mark; they would depict Peter, Andrew, James, and John resuming their former Galilee life and Jesus appears to them in a manner parallel to the first appearance in ch. 1. Matthew on the other hand has the appearance occur at a mountain, which is less natural (there is no earlier reference to Jesus telling them to go to a mountain), and which evokes the scene of the transfiguration story.
I think that Paul probably had a vision of Jesus also, though I am not sure of the mechanism that caused this (epilepsy, feeling of shame about persecuting Christians, etc.)
It is noteworthy that what Paul characterizes as a post-resurrection appearance is reported in Acts as an audition and other than the blinding light, is not beheld as such by others.
I had a lengthy post quite a few years ago about the possibility that Paul was epileptic. The evidence is far from clear, but it is an intriguing possibility which would explain the connection between the "thorn in the flesh"/"angel of Satan" and the visionary experiences Paul describes (2 Corinthians 12:1-10). But again this is really speculative.
First, hallucinations are not group occurences, but are unique to individuals, like dreams.
This is not really true; collective or group hallucinations are well-documented, and can be quite lifelike. But hallucinations need not be group occurrences for stories to arise about a shared group experience, and the memory of experiences can be socially molded as well. There is a rather good discussion of these matters in the book American Apocypha with regard to the testimony of the witnesses of the "golden plates" possessed by Joseph Smith; what is reported as a literal visual experience shared by a group belies a much more complex situation with elements of group hallucination and after-the-fact revising of memories (e.g. what originally was separate experiences of physically holding the plates under a cloth and later seeing them in a vision became conflated as literally seeing and holding the plates at the same time), particularly in the case of those who did not have the "correct" experience at the time (such as one fellow who failed to "see" the plates the first time he tried).
Hallucinations do not explain the empty tomb.
I think the position is generally that the empty tomb is a later narrative development in the resurrection tradition; I don't think anyone posits hallucinations as the explanation for this theme.
I personally think too much alcohol or other super-happy-fun-substance was involved somewhere along the line.
This is not really true; collective or group hallucinations are well-documented, and can be quite lifelike. But hallucinations need not be group occurrences for stories to arise about a shared group experience, and the memory of experiences can be socially molded as well. There is a rather good discussion of these matters in the book American Apocypha with regard to the testimony of the witnesses of the "golden plates" possessed by Joseph Smith; what is reported as a literal visual experience shared by a group belies a much more complex situation with elements of group hallucination and after-the-fact revising of memories (e.g. what originally was separate experiences of physically holding the plates under a cloth and later seeing them in a vision became conflated as literally seeing and holding the plates at the same time), particularly in the case of those who did not have the "correct" experience at the time (such as one fellow who failed to "see" the plates the first time he tried).
I do not believe that the "testimonies" of the 11 LDS "witnesses" can be held in the same esteem as testimonies of the disciples of Jesus. First, while all of the disciples were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs, 6 of the 11 LDS "witnesses" left the Mormon Church. Further, even if the LDS "witnesses" actually saw the golden plates, this tells us nothing of what was written on them. After all Joseph Smith had to wear magic glasses in order to interpret the alleged writings on the golden plates. There is no archeological evidence that even remotely confims any of the stories in the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, there is evidence outside the New Testament that confirms the testimony of Jesus' disciples (e.g., the empty tomb, and the conversions of Paul and James). Lastly, there are huge archeological issues with the Book of Abraham, while no viable evidence against Christianity exists.
I think the position is generally that the empty tomb is a later narrative development in the resurrection tradition
That's nice to know. However, Dr. Gary Habermas has done research that demonstrates that 75% of the scholars he polled (from conservative to liberal) believe that the tomb was empty based on the narratives. Habermas even quotes Bart Ehrmann as saying:
Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.
Further, William Lane Craig places the Christian formula found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 to within five years of the resurrection event. Not to mention Peter's first sermon as recorded in Acts 2.
There is ample evidence to hold to historicity of the resurrection. Opposing theories do not hold their own when analyzed objectively. SO there must be another reason for unbelief.
