The Question of the Resurection of Jesus

[Skeptical Greg]

Krkey has made this statement..

In the end no matter how well I do in the end it is up to the person to accept the apostles were truthful and correct about what happened on easter sunday.

Which apostle?

They couldn't have all been truthfull, because the four stories we have ( three of them were possibly authored by actual disciples ) are somewhat different. (I'll trot out the actual differences later, if their absence here holds anyone up )

1. So at least one of the story tellers wasn't telling the complete truth. ( or do we need to assume something else about the nature of truth ). Which one was it?

2. One of the possibilities is that none of them were.. ( telling the truth )

3. It is not possible that all of them were.. ( completely truthful regarding this matter)

With #3 out of the way, we have to decide what the implications are, that at least one of the writers of the resurrection story is a liar.

Another question I have, is why some 300 years later, what the organizers of the Bible had in mind, when they included these conflicting stories in the canon?

Maybe they assumed that 99.9 percent of the ( known) world's population would remain illiterate, as it was then..:confused:


P.S. Make that ' two ' possible actual disciples.. John and Matthew...

[triadboy]

Check out the 'Debate Teaser' thread.

[triadboy]

BTW, what's up with the mask. I remember WEBLOS, Lions, wolfs, Bears (I think) - I don't remember racoons. :-)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Diogenes
P.S. Make that ' two ' possible actual disciples.. John and Matthew... What evidence is there that either were apostles?

[TruthSeeker]

I had a fundie friend explain it to me this way:

Each one had a slightly different piece of the story which when put together (as in, once we get to heaven and Jesus tells us what happened) will all make sense.

It's like getting a story from various sources. They may seem to contradict each other but they don't.

I know.

It's impossible to argue with the "The contradictions are only because we read it with limited human abilities" argument.

Oh, and, he isn't my friend anymore.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Fuddies overlook many problems in the Bible, such as:

1) It's not a book. It's a collection of writings, spanning thousands of years but dozens of anonymous authors.

2) When it came time to create the "Bible", some of the kooky stories were put in, others were left out (and destroyed if they greatly counterdicted accepted stories).

3) The Bible was never meant to be read by the average person. It was meant to be read by priests and they passed on the "wisdom" to the people.

4) One day science would come along and disprove many of the myths and folk stories which were passed on as fact for centuries (and still are today! *cough* Noah's flood).

I always found it interesting that we refer to the stories of Hercules as mythology but the stories of Jesus is religious history.

So if it's the literal word of God, the guy is a dime store hack with bad editing skills.

[Hexxenhammer]

Important to note that krkey himself is not a fundamentalist. More a new testament apologist or something llike that.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Important to note that krkey himself is not a fundamentalist. More a new testament apologist or something llike that.

I agree, but I love probing the beliefs anyway. If Jesus says in the NT, "Just like Jonah was in the whale 3 days ..." - do NT apologists have to believe the fish story?

[Gregor]

Diogenes

Why the conflict in the passion narrative? I think John D Crossan said it best in the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ," his comment was something like:

"Were the original canon compilers so stupid as not to realize the stories were inconsistent, and we're so smart to see that they are. . . or were the original compilers so smart as to realize that exact details are irrelevant and we're so stupid we do back-flips trying to harmonize the stories."

I bet if you pointed out to Eusebius that the stories were not the same, he'd say "Yes, and your point would be. . .?"

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Gregor
Diogenes
I bet if you pointed out to Eusebius that the stories were not the same, he'd say "Yes, and your point would be. . .?"

I think these stories were written and read by communities and it didn't really make any difference if another community had a slightly different story - there were hundreds of them! There are gnostic stories where Jesus lives - because his "evil twin" was crucified while Jesus stood on a hill laughing. There are stories that Jesus never was crucified - got married and lived happily ever after, there are infancy stories that are hilarious, etc.

However, this abundance of inconsistencies became a problem for the church fathers in the 2nd century. They had to select four and burn the rest.

Don't forget - Christianity is the only religion that had a church first - and then gathered their Holy writings. They did it bass ackwards.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gregor
Diogenes



I bet if you pointed out to Eusebius that the stories were not the same, he'd say "Yes, and your point would be. . .?"
My point would be, that many would argue that the Bible ( NT) is the inspired word of God, and that any apparent inaccuracies are because we are somehow out of touch with this God.

I do not have an argument with anyone who says: " Hey, these are different stories by different people who heard different things, and it is hard to be sure exactly what happened, or if it happened at all.."
The resurrected Jesus was supposedly witnessed by possibly hundreds of people. I find it ironic and suspicious, that the few people who bothered to document it ( with the help of God, no less ), didn't do a very credible job.

As both sides have pointed out, if the resurrection didn't happen, there would certainly be no point in Christianity as it exists today..

[jimmygun]

Top Ten Possible Explanations for the Resurection of Jesus...

1- It never happened. Made up of whole cloth.

2- Jesus faked his own death without the knowledge of the apostles.

3- Jesus faked his own death with the knowledge of his apostles.

4- Jesus' death may have been assumed by everyone but he came out of a coma to everyone's surpise.

5- Urban legend. Stories just grew from some point or from no point at all.

6-


You fill in the rest.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy
BTW, what's up with the mask. I remember WEBLOS, Lions, wolfs, Bears (I think) - I don't remember racoons. :-)

It's Halloweeeeeeen!!

You're not supposed to recognize me...:D

[Upchurch]

Being mistaken for dead is not an unheard of phenomenon.

My fiancee has a book (The Book of Death, or something similar) that talks about being buried alive became such a worry that there was a time (19th century?) that a mechanism rigged up when a person was buried that, if they woke up, they could ring a bell and alert someone. Hense the phrase, "saved by the bell."

If they couldn't always tell that someone was still alive in the 19th centry, is it such a stretch of imagination that they couldn't always tell in the 1st century?

[SFB]

Hey, wait a minute Triadboy, Upchurch, Diogenes, Jimmygun, et al: You don't have the proper credentials to make such statements! Where's the scholarly research?

:D

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Being mistaken for dead is not an unheard of phenomenon.

My fiancee has a book (The Book of Death, or something similar) that talks about being buried alive became such a worry that there was a time (19th century?) that a mechanism rigged up when a person was buried that, if they woke up, they could ring a bell and alert someone. Hense the phrase, "saved by the bell."

If they couldn't always tell that someone was still alive in the 19th centry, is it such a stretch of imagination that they couldn't always tell in the 1st century?

My grandmother used to tell a story about a "dead" person waking up during the visitation time. This would have been around 1915 in a small European village. She remembered very distinctly that people were surprised and pleased but this was not exactly miraculous or unheard of. She claimed (although this may be an exaggeration) that it was because of cases like this that people were not buried for 3 days after their death.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

She claimed (although this may be an exaggeration) that it was because of cases like this that people were not buried for 3 days after their death. I'm stretching my memory on this one, but I think I remember that in the situation I described above with the bell, family members would wait by the grave side for something like 3 days to listen for the bell. need to find that book sometime

[whitefork]

"Vampires, Burial, and Death" maybe?
http://www.urbanlegends.com/death/buried_alive.html

[jimmygun]

SFB...Read the heading of my post...it says 'possible' explanations for the ressurection of JC. All are reasonable and possible, much more in my mind than a tale of invisible sky daddy pulling his magical son out of a hat. If you think any or all are not reasonable or possible please elaborate.

[SFB]

Jimmy:

I was trying to poke fun at Krkey who insisted on referring only to NT scholars in another thread. I wholly agree with your post.

[Mike B.]

Here is a faith formula Paul gave in about 54CE about 20 years after Jesus's death:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. "

So it seems Saul/Paul was given that information by Cephas(Peter) early on.

Remember the above predates the gospel by 15-40 years.

[Gregor]

Given information by Peter? Not necessarily.

It demonstrates that there was some known oral tradition of Jesus appearing to people after his death. But Paul's order of appearances is quite different that the synoptics and Acts.

And Paul is trying to say "I'm just as good as the disciples, he appeared to me, too, just like you all heard that he appeared to the disciples and the Jerusalem church."

[Mike B.]

Yes,
remember this predates the Synoptics and Acts.

It seems to be some ancient Xian formula that Paul appended himself to.

This was the original story...The synoptics and John seem like dramatization of this story...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Yes, remember this predates the Synoptics and Acts.

It seems to be some ancient Xian formula that Paul appended himself to.

This was the original story...The synoptics and John seem like dramatization of this story...


Jewish Gnosticism - A Jewish Mystery Religion. Paul was a gnostic from Tarsus. The formula he bought into was ages old. {Am I repeating myself?}

The Gospels place this mystery religion of a dying god-man in an historical setting and a specific time. [Of course, they botch the historical setting and can't get the time right, but that's another thread]

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by triadboy



Jewish Gnosticism - A Jewish Mystery Religion. Paul was a gnostic from Tarsus. The formula he bought into was ages old. {Am I repeating myself?}

The Gospels place this mystery religion of a dying god-man in an historical setting and a specific time. [Of course, they botch the historical setting and can't get the time right, but that's another thread]

Saul/Paul a Jewish Gnostic?

Not so sure about that?

ancient formula with Cephas and James the "brother of the Lord"?

(And yes I read Internet Infidels too...But please be aware these theories do NOT have much support outside of these sites in SECULAR scholarly circles.)

As a non-religious person, I always felt skeptics were looking for a knock-out blow against Xianity, so they embraced some esoteric junk historical theories and simply asserted them to be true.

Anyway, these arguments have been done to death on these boards, and I have no wish to continue them. As I don't believe in the Xian religion, it ultimately doesn't really matter a whole lot to me...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Mike B.

Saul/Paul a Jewish Gnostic?

(And yes I read Internet Infidels too...But please be aware these theories do NOT have much support outside of these sites in SECULAR scholarly circles.)


I've never read Internet Infidels. This is the only place I come. I have a job and a family. I play in a classic rock band on the weekends. I'm too busy to hang out on the internet all the time, but I have this 'need' to talk to someone about it - and we all know how dangerous that is at work - and my wife will strangle me if I bring this up to her. She's always been an atheist - and she went through my epiphany. I've been 'religiously' studying religion/mythology since I got my Masters in Humanities in 94. That is ALL I READ! It fascinates me.

I always had a problem with Paul. It bothered me he didn't know anything. All that wonderful crap in the Gospels - Paul doesn't know about!? I read a recent book called The Jesus Mysteries. This along with my reading of all of Joseph Campbells writings clicked on a light. It makes sense now. The evolution of xianity from its gnostic beginnings.

BTW - to all my friends here I would recommend 'The Jesus Mysteries'. I don't recommend their next book 'Jesus and the Lost Goddess' however, not because it isn't good - it's just not as fun of a read as the former.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by triadboy
I've never read Internet Infidels.
I particularly recommend their Biblical Criticism & History thread. I've leared a lot from that.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I particularly recommend their Biblical Criticism & History thread. I've leared a lot from that.


Thanks I'll check it out.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Assuming all four ( Matt, Mark, Luke, and Johnny) lived during the time Jesus was to have lived, they were eye-witnesses themselves or interviewing eyewitnesses that saw and or spoke with Jesus. And we all know how how accurate eyewitness accounts can be.

Case in point,

I watched the manufactured Indian Rope trick a while back put on by a large group of cooperative people (Penn and Teller).

Penn noted that eventually, local people who were not present during the Indian rope trick would state that they were there and saw the rope rise. People who had just walked in (just in time to see the rope drop and the little boy recover from apparently severe wounds) may eventually state that they saw the tricks with their own eyes from the beginning.
People may even believe their own stories of their participation in the manufatured event. The event was manufactured. The memories of what happened are reinterpreted, and everytime the story is told it is reconstructed. Problems, problems, problems.

So, as an example, lets say Jesus turned the water into wine at a wedding. Perhaps he had accomplices that cheered and passed around the wine just as people were being rushed into the wedding. People who were present may have been intoxicated already, already (putting their testimony in doubt from a skeptical perspective). People coming in would take the story at face value as they were passed a cup of wine.
What really happened is known only to Jesus and his accomplices. Jesus says some metaphor or another, taking advantage of the excitement.

The supposed miricle takes on a life of its own, as clouded minds retell the story that day. Each time it is retold it is reconstructed. Days, weeks, months or years later these eyewitnesses claim they participated in the wedding celeration and saw with their own eyes water turned into wine. People that were rushing in from the streets or another room were no longer absent for the event, but eventually transfer them selves into the event after a few tellings. Matt, Mark, Luke and Johnny record the testimonies, or if they were present, record what they remember on that exciting night of revellry.