So, was Jesus Resurrected?

[cj.23]

OK in this break away from Doc's incredibly long thread I suggest we chat over the resurrection. You can do what you want, say what you want and proceed how you like, cause this is the JREF and no poster should try to dictate how others develop a thread

A Philosophical Aside

Still I'm going to suggest a method of enquiry, which everyone is free to follow or ignore. Firstly, clearly no human being is resurrected in the normal course of events. Resurrected is not resuscitated. This claim is for a paranormal event, or rather a supernatural event - it defies the natural laws of biological death with which we are all familiar. As such, it immediately breaks our assumption of the uniformity of natural laws across time and space - (a quick nod to David Hume here: the problem of induction). So some might say "well we hardly need to discuss this, it can not by definition have occurred". We can not technically know this as an absolute: we do absolutely not know that the sun will come up tomorrow, because we do not absolutely know that the laws of physics for example are immutable, eternal, constant.

In short the claim that a man in 1st century Jerusalem was resurrected is a supernatural claim. We do not know that supernatural events can not occur - but it would be exactly what it says on the tin, a miracle, a violation of natural law. As Hume reminds us we can not discount this possibility logically: the Problem of Induction will always remain insoluble I suspect. If the Christian truth claim that is the supreme intervention of God in the natural order is true, we are faced with a miracle.

Of course there may be naturalistic explanations for the Resurrection. In fact there are many. Are any more convincing? I don't know, but I'm certainly open to working through each: the supernatural resurrection theory can ne underdetermined by at least half a dozen competing naturalistic explanations. So let's look at all of them, and not shy away from any possibility. Ultimately we can all decide which is the most likely explanation in our own minds - we were not there to know. I'll try and put away my Christian prejudices, and I hope you can do the same regarding your pre-existing ideas. I'm guessing our best chance is simply to look at what evidence we, and look at it in the context of what archeology, history and our knowledge of messianic cults and other modern phenomena tll us about the events of those three days.

Of course to Hume, testimony to a miracle only suggests a miracle if the competing explantions are even more unlikely, greater miracles. Therefore I suggest we actually concentrate not on trying to prove the Resurection "true" in some sense, but in seeing how strong the competing hypotheses, (the naturalistic explanations) are. IN other word's let us assume as a default that it was not a miracle, as the miracle will be the hardest possible case to make - let us instead work through logically all the alternatives.

I'm not ruling out the miracle (it is after all at the heart of my faith) but I am convvinced that the only way to approach the historical issue of what happened is to play with the normal tools of history and our experience - we can always look at the miracle option as a final alternative.

IN short I suggest we put aside faith, and proceed logically, deductively, and in the manner of a crime scene investigation, or perhaps closer still, a piece of research in parapsychological spontaneous case investigation, which happens to be something I am very comfortable with...

So where do we start?

I therefore propose we start by looking at the actual "witness statements", and note of course that we have no direct testimony from any of those present as far as I know.
Nonetheless, we can at least

1. draw up a list of references from those who purport to know what happened

2. date those references, to the best of modern scholarship's capacity

and 3. Analyse them for internal consistency and clues to what may have actually happened.

This is a historical event: something presuably happened, even if it was someone made the story up, and it grew from there. It has a chronological point at which the events are fixed - as I shall show I hope, finding that point is lot more complex than just saying "33 CE" or whatever. We face uncertainty on the days in question, and the year in question. Still, we can persist, and hopefully we can come closer in our understanding to what actually happened back then, in the objective world we share, and how it was understood by various groups and maybe even individuals.

We don't need any great scholarship - we can all read the bible online, and pretty much every secondary text should be available to Google. I can certainly dig out archaeological and historical material to elucidate key points - but there ar e people far better than I on Scripture, History and the archeology on this forum. But this is a free for all. We should all try to ask questions, and find new ways of looking at the problem. There is a right and wrong answer, but it is a lot harder than what Napoleon had for breakfast on a Sunday in 1798, and I don't pretend i know it. I'm starting from considerable ignorance, and looking at it as openly as I can, and i hope you will join me.

One thing is certain - as soon as you read the Resurrection accounts you realise this is actually a lot weirder, indeed much much starnger, than most believers or hard core atheists ever acknowledge. The story we will look at it is not the story a lot of us think we know - and I find that in itself interesting.

So anyone up for it? Any ideas? Any comments? What would be useful? Any tactics we could agree before we start, and suggestions? If not I'll post the key texts, one at a time, and we can see what we can learn from each.

cj x

 

[bluesjnr]

There is just not enough hard evidence, for or against, in this specific case to avoid speculation; even speculation regarding the references. This is a "claimed" historical event.

You, yourself used the phrase

something presumably happened, even if it was someone made the story up, and it grew from there

I'm going to presume that you had a typo in your OP and I'll presume to have corrected it to what you meant to say. I cannot possibly know for sure until you and you alone tell me I'm right. Nobody else can speak for you.

That's as far as presuming anything gets us.

 

[cj.23]

There is just not enough hard evidence, for or against, to avoid speculation, even speculation regarding the references. This is a "claimed" historical event.

(snip)

That's as far as presuming anything gets us.

Absolutely. Which is why I created the thread - to speculate, explore, and look at different interpretations. Something happened that gave rise to narratives - just as at 00.39 GMT I typed these words in a basement in Cheltenham. Yet future historians will never really know exactly what happened here at that time: they can only reconstruct based on this text, upon the fact I (or someone pretending to be me) must have been at a computer, and upon what others can tell them. All history is speculation - but some speculation approaches what happened closer than other speculation? So I don't think we can win, can ascertain a true knowledge of events as i said - only that we can examine them critically, and make our own minds up. I reject historical relativism - the events must have some kind of objective origin - but our undertanding of them, sure, by necessity is speculative

cj x

cj x

 

[Limbo]

Hi Jerome old friend!

I read Psychology and Alchemy last week, and I want to present an excerpt that came to mind for your speculative consideration.

"It is clear enough from this material what the ultimate aim of alchemy really was: it was trying to produce a transfigured and resurrected body, i.e., a body that was at the same time spirit. In this it finds common ground with Chinese alchemy, as we have learned from The Secret of the Golden Flower. There the main concern is the "diamond body," in other words the attainment of immortality through the transformation of the body. The diamond is an excellent symbol because it is hard, fiery, and translucent. Orthelius tells us that the philosophers have never found a better medicament than that which they called the noble and blessed stone of the philosophers, on account of it's hardness, transparency, and rubeous hue." pg 428

 

[dafydd]

No.

 

[bokonon]

Assuming there was an actual Jesus who was actually crucified, my best guess for a resurrection sequence is that it's made up. Lots of the eyewitnesses didn't seem to recognize Jesus, so I'd say that someone who maybe resembled him tried to grab a bit of glory, much as Michael Jackson or David Bowie impersonators do today. One advantage that they'd have had is that those who'd never met Jesus likely had no idea what he looked like. I'm sure there were those even before Jesus' death who might have tried to con a free meal or a romp in the hay out of claiming to be somebody famous. Heck, that was Charles Manson's M.O., and people are generally less gullible today.

Now, did any pretenders happen to have holes in their palms? I couldn't rule it out; it would certainly be a non-fatal convincer.

My big problem with accepting a miraculous resurrection is, why didn't he hang around? Two thousand years later, the "man who wouldn't die" would be a powerful convincer. Forty days and out seems more like a scam that somebody got tired of running.

 

[James in New York]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwG9Tojg9I

 

[cj.23]

I'm off to bed now so I'll respond tomorrow to the various comments I have missed while typing this.

OK, so what is our earliest reference? Was it

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

It's interesting. Dated normally somewhere in the region of 53 to 57CE, 20 - 30 years after the crucifixion dates generally suggested, the author is Paul, a convert to the new religion (but hey they were all converts by definition).

A few notes from me to get the ball rolling -

3: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures : (CJ) This is clearly a theological doctrinal statement - and it suggests the events are in some sense foretold in the Jewish Scriptures. So by this time the events are being interpreted in the light of prophecy - we have no account which predates that process of theological interpretation.

Jesus' death is seen as fulfilling a purpose - salvation - not as a historical accident, a recounting of something which happened to someone. This is not unusual - many narratives are framed in terms of purpose in our own lives, but it is worth noting. Furthermore Paul identifies this as of PRIMARY importance to the faith - this is non-negotiable, the absolute heart of his message.

Perhaps the most interesting part though is the opening "For what I received I passed on to you..." in other words what I was told I told you previously -- or was he told? what is the meaning of the word received? Did Paul receive this from others, or from a divine revelation? Paul has clearly told the story before though: he is reiterating here a previously taught message, presumably from his time in Corinth, which may have been in 52 or 53.

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, : he was buried - in itself interesting, we need to look at the fate of bodies of crucifixion victims clearly - he was raised on the third day - and it happened in accordance with something Paul sees in the Jewish Scriptures - but which presumably non-Christians in the Jewish community did not. What was that, and how long had this idea been circulating before the events?

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve : Cephas is Peter. And then to the Twelve in English grammar suggests the twelve do not include Cephas - anyone with Biblical Greek able to comment on the original grammar? I get the impression that definitions of the Twelve are pretty fluid, but I could be wrong.

Jesus "appears" to them - a lot will ride on what that word actually means I suspect. In this case a sole witness, Cephas/Peter sees Jesus first, then presumably tells the Twelve who subsequently witness Jesus themselves. This raises my hackles as a parapsychologist - we have a clear beginning of the appearances, with a single witness. Did Cephas hallucinate yet somehow convince the others till they shared his experience? Did they know before? This account is tantalizingly brief.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep:
this is a really fascinating verse. Five hundred witnesses, all unnamed, but all apparently already believers at the time of the experience, all of whom are gathered somewhere and see Jesus. (I immediately think of Fatima and similar Marian apparitions, but there most of the crowd do not actually see the purported apparitions - normally that is reserved for a handful of witrnesses, even as the crowd look on. Here it is explicit they all shared the experience, well according to Paul. But Jesus does not appear to the non-believers - it is to the brothers and sisters.

That in itself is very interesting: can women testify in a Jewish law of the time? i don't know.Paul accepts them as full witnesses, and seems to rank them as equals - not to "two hundred men with some women along", just 500.

The significance of the still living, though some have fallen asleep may not be a it appears. Caliming 500 people most of whom are still alive in Jerusalem one presumes might seems like a claim to evidence - but in fact a "write to Bob at thsi address he can tell you what he saw with his own eyes" would be far more compelling to the modern mind than this flock of anonymous witnesses. I don't actually think Paul is trying to offer us proof here though - nor is it just a historical aside - Paul is wrestling with the belief that Jesus will return before some present have tasted death, ie in that first generation. At this stage he is I think expecting Jesus' imminent return - and I suspect that it is what he has in the back of his mind.

Oh and sleeping - he clearly sees the resurrection of Jesus as somehow leading to a more general resurrection of the believing dead - the sleepers will after all wake - otherwise he might have just said "died". Personal immortality is clearly part of Paul's belief system?

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
So he then appears to Jesus' brother, and all the apostles, of whom I believe there were 72? We can now construct a quick look at the Resurrection appearances Paul recounts in order

1. To Cephas (Peter)
2. To the Twelve
3. To 500 believers at one time and place
4. To James
5. To all the Apostles (perhaps 72 men and women)
6. Lastly to Paul himself.

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born
The significance of this is obscure unless you read on -

" 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. "

actually Paul is in conflict at times with teh Church in Jerusalem under the aformentioned James' Jesus broither, for reasons we can discuss later. That conflict, and the reasons for it might be very important I guess?

So this is our earliest (probably) very brief reference. Still I think we might get more from it. Any one have ideas? Perhaps we need to work out a bit more about this Paul bloke, who never actually met the living Jesus?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Assuming there was an actual Jesus who was actually crucified, my best guess for a resurrection sequence is that it's made up. Lots of the eyewitnesses didn't seem to recognize Jesus, so I'd say that someone who maybe resembled him tried to grab a bit of glory, much as Michael Jackson or David Bowie impersonators do today. One advantage that they'd have had is that those who'd never met Jesus likely had no idea what he looked like. I'm sure there were those even before Jesus' death who might have tried to con a free meal or a romp in the hay out of claiming to be somebody famous. Heck, that was Charles Manson's M.O., and people are generally less gullible today.

Yep, impersonation is a pretty sound hypothesis, so I'll quickly reply cos that is a good one and yeah you are absolutely right to point out the modern parallels, I like the impersonators idea.

From what I've read so far, the 1 Corinthians reference, there is one big problem with it - he appears to not people on the street, not just those who saw him preach once, but the hard core followers - Cephas, the Twelve, the Apostles, 500 believers. PAul he could easily hoodwink - he had probably never met the living Jesus, or at least never followed him. But a lot of these folks have been living with him for at least one, and maybe three years (I'll explain that later), going everywhere with hin and hanging on his every word.

Now I like your line of reasoning - and i can see straight away this can happen. I'm thinking the Anasatasia claimants, the Dauphin claimants, possibly a Joan of Arc claimant, and certainly the tichborne Will case where relatives do apparently accept the impostor as the person they have lost. Grief does funny things.

The fact he does not look like Jesus (see the Road to Emmaus story), or rather they do not recognise him at first is a strong hint you may be right as you say. The appearances may have been fleeting - we need to look at this in more detail. It si certainly a very strong theory, but there are a few other problems we will need to address.

One is why would anyone impersonate someone who has just been crucified for insurrection or blasphemy or whatever it was - te one thing we can know is that it was a capital crime. Sure people confess to murders they did not do - the black Dahlia case had them lining up to confess asI recall - but I'm not aware of a case of anyone impersoanting an already executed man and risking the same fate if nabbed.

Still if that was the case - who did it? Why? If it was the disciples, it would have been easier to simply make up the accounts - which may of course be what happened - and lie about seeing him. There is of course the odd bits I'm going to get to later - he appears in locked rooms, and disappears as mysteriously, etc, etc. Unles these blatantly "superantural" aspects were added to the story by the creators of the impersonation?

Now, did any pretenders happen to have holes in their palms? I couldn't rule it out; it would certainly be a non-fatal convincer.

Yes, and it is entirely possible that there were people who had been cruficied but reprieved and taken down (and maybe others rescuded?), who would have had the appropriate marks. I'm pretty sure I know of at least one case where this is documented as happenning. I'll dig it out tomorrow when I get in, unles anyone has it to hand. Was it Lucian who records it? I'm not sure how soon the wounds would heal or to what extent , but certainly I see no reason why we have to assume someone had ot inflict them - they could have already had them?

My big problem with accepting a miraculous resurrection is, why didn't he hang around? Two thousand years later, the "man who wouldn't die" would be a powerful convincer. Forty days and out seems more like a scam that somebody got tired of running.

Yep, I completely sympathise with that. The Ascension is more mind boggling than the Resurrection in some ways, and it's up there with teh Transfiguration. We will talk about this, I agree it makes little sense to me either, and Jesus appears in Jerusalem when the holiday season is stil in full swing - the Passover. When the crowds go home, did the impersonator depart with them?

There are problems with the theory, but I think we can think those through. It's a solid one, and one I have not heard before that I can recall. Cheers Bokonon, nice argument.

oh and James in New York, thanks for that mate, made me laugh!

cj x

 

[cj.23]

No.

OK, why?

cj x

 

[Thunder]

the only way Jesus could have risen from the dead, is if he was never really dead..in the first place!!

hmmm...

 

[cj.23]

Hi Jerome old friend!

I read Psychology and Alchemy last week, and I want to present an excerpt that came to mind for your speculative consideration.

"It is clear enough from this material what the ultimate aim of alchemy really was: it was trying to produce a transfigured and resurrected body, i.e., a body that was at the same time spirit. In this it finds common ground with Chinese alchemy, as we have learned from The Secret of the Golden Flower. There the main concern is the "diamond body," in other words the attainment of immortality through the transformation of the body. The diamond is an excellent symbol because it is hard, fiery, and translucent. Orthelius tells us that the philosophers have never found a better medicament than that which they called the noble and blessed stone of the philosophers, on account of it's hardness, transparency, and rubeous hue." pg 428

This is actually VERY reminiscent of something we will look at I guess: Paul's bit on the Resurrection body. You know the passage? Hey Limbo, you ok mate? Good to see yu! I just sort of popped in and thought time for another discussion.

cj x

cj x

 

[cj.23]

the only way Jesus could have risen from the dead, is if he was never really dead..in the first place!!

hmmm...

lol, I like the paradox. OK, so what if he was not actually dead? What if he was actually resuscitated, either spontaneously or by medical intervention? That is one of the obvious possibilities, and to answer that we will have to look at the crucifixion accounts, and try to fix a cause of death - which is a lot harder than it sounds I think. Want to have a go? (Unless someone else was crucified in his place, or it is the Crucificxion which is the actual fictional part of the story - don't think I have ever seen anyone suggestthat actually - feel free to argue that line of enquiry too!)

cj x

 

[Limbo]

This is actually VERY reminiscent of something we will look at I guess: Paul's bit on the Resurrection body. You know the passage? Hey Limbo, you ok mate? Good to see yu! I just sort of popped in and thought time for another discussion.

Doing very well, thanks!

Yeah it is very reminiscent of Paul's bit. As you know I favor a wide comparative approach to mysticism, religion, and mythology, and such similarities fascinate me.

"These three characteristics, identity, entirety, and immortality, will be common to the risen bodies of the just and the wicked. But the bodies of the saints shall be distinguished by four transcendent endowments, often called qualities.

* The first is "impassibility", which shall place them beyond the reach of pain and inconvenience. "It is sown", says the Apostle, "in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption" (1 Corinthians 15:42). The Schoolmen call this quality impassibility', not incorruption, so as to mark it as a peculiarity of the glorified body; the bodies of the damned will be incorruptible indeed, but not impassible; they shall be subject to heat and cold, and all manner of pain.

* The next quality is "brightness", or "glory", by which the bodies of the saints shall shine like the sun. "It is sown in dishonour," says the Apostle, "it shall rise in glory" (1 Corinthians 15:43; cf. Matthew 13:43; 17:2; Philippians 3:21). All the bodies of the saints shall be equally impassible, but they shall be endowed with different degrees of glory. According to St. Paul: "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory"'(1 Corinthians 15:41-42).

* The third quality is that of "agility", by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power" (1 Corinthians 15:43).

* The fourth quality is "subtility", by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: "It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). The body participates in the soul's more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

And to further reflect on the comparative approach:

[...]

This presentation is focused on the "highest" or "final" energy body. Some of the names given to that body are as follow:

• In the Christian tradition and esoteric Judaism it is called "the resurrection body" and "the glorified body." St. Paul called it "the celestial body" or "spiritual body."
• In Sufism it is called "the most sacred body" (wujud al-aqdas).
• In Taoism it is called "the diamond body" and those who have attained it are called "the immortals" and "the cloudwalkers."
• In Tibetan Buddhism it is called "the light body."
• In some mystery schools it is called "the solar body."
• In Rosicrucianism it is called "the diamond body of the temple of God."
• In Tantrism and yoga it is called the "the vajra body," "the adamantine body" and "the divine body."
• In Vedanta it is called "the superconductive body."
• In Kriya yoga it is called "the body of bliss."
• In Gnosticism and Neoplatonism it is called "the radiant body."
• In the alchemical tradition, the Emerald Tablet calls it "the Glory of the Whole Universe" and the "golden body."
• In the Hermetic Corpus it is called "the immortal body" (soma athanaton).
• In ancient Egypt it was called "the Akh."
• In Old Persia it was called "the indwelling divine potential" (fravashi or fra varti).
• In the Mithraic liturgy it was called "the perfect body" (soma telion)
• In the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo it is called "the Divine Body" composed of supramental substance.
• In the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin it is called "the ultrahuman."
• In the philosophy of Nietzsche it is called "the Overman (das Ubermensch)."

http://www.cejournal.org/GRD/DeathandResurrection.htm

So, yes I think maybe Jesus was resurrected.

 

[Bikewer]

Seems to me from my somewhat limited reading on the subject that at least some of the "Jesus cults" that sprang up after JC snuffed it felt that the "resurrection" was entirely allegorical.
Naturally, a real, physical resurrection would have been more appealing to prospective converts...
And thus perhaps those groups that held to an actual physical presence were the ones that won out among the dozens of such early-Christian sects known to exist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would apply Occam's Razor.

I think the most likely explanation is that it was an apocryphal story. No naturalistic explanation (resuscitation) or miraculous one is really necessary given the "evidence".

 

[PixyMisa]

I suggest we do Gandalf instead. At least there we have a single authoritative source.

 

[figarot]

What if the historical Jesus had a twin? Say, he planned to hang around longer than 40 days after his brother's death but some soldiers were pissed he "survived" the cross and nails, and took to quietly cutting the twin's throat and dumping the body...

 

[steve s]

I think the most likely explanation is that it was an apocryphal story. No naturalistic explanation (resuscitation) or miraculous one is really necessary given the "evidence".

I agree. It's not difficult to get believers to claim that they saw things they didn't. Look at Joseph Smith and the people he convinced to claim they had seen the golden tablets. Or the cult members who follow Michael Travesser who swear he underwent a transformation on October 31, 2007, despite the fact that nothing happened.

Steve S

 

[nelsondogg]

What about Matthew 27:52-53?

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

Looks like Jesus wasn't the only one resurrected.