So, was Jesus Resurrected?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here he refers to the accepted narrative yet again, and alludes to fleshy events.

Anyway, I have been rather quick in grabbing a few bits of I Corinthians, it is late, and I may not be back for a while. Paul, even with his eratic prose style, does indeed point to knowledge of the fleshy Christ before Christ became the Risen Christ, the latter being the topic of most of his writings, doctrinal and otherwise.

DR

Yeah. The theme of 1Corinthians, as you know, is that the reason they are surrounded by discord is that they do not understand the nature of the resurrection. The resurrection is not a spiritual event, so that they could already be participating in the goods of it, but a future event (or as in Thessalonians some will get there soon before death even occurs).

The point being that the folks who thought they could do anything with their body -- like have sex with their step-mother or with prostitutes -- are wrong because bodies are central to resurrection -- the further point being that Paul clearly believed that Jesus was once alive and had a body, otherwise he could not have been resurrected. While Paul didn't think we would have bodies similar to what we have now, he believed that we would have bodies at resurrection (or ascension for those still alive).

He certainly speaks of Jesus in abstract, spiritual terms, but it is the Risen Christ he so describes/addresses -- one who now has a spiritual body. With all the other evidence I think it would be wrong for anyone to conclude from the 'spiritual passages' that he never conceived of Jesus as having lived. I think it fairly clear from Corinthians that he knew of Jesus' death. Whether he knew much about his life is another matter for which we have limited evidence.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, yeah, but there is no particular reason not to trust Paul that he received the kerygma as he relates it. These are letters after all written for specific purposes. He did not write the letters in order to create a new religion. If he really invented it all why claim to have received information from others? Why not simply say "God told me ........."

Ever heard of sockpuppets? People make up fictive character that agree with them, or who are more authoritative about some issue, to this day. There are even some forums out there where all that happens in some threads is 20 of one single guy's sockpuppets agreeing with each other.

And, really, from _whom_ did he receive his information? He's not even consistent there. By the time he tells the road to Damascus tall tale again by the end of Acts, this time he _did_ receive a lot more directly from his hallucination of Jesus on the spot. So it seems to me like, yes, in the end he does fall back to "God told me."

And, really, from _whom_ did he receive his information? From the Ebionites it wasn't.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies: "They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law." (But, again, according to the later Epiphanus, only a massively truncated and modified version of Matthew, missing stuff like the virgin birth.)

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: "These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law." (The mention of epistles makes it pretty clear which apostle.)

So Paul clearly wasn't carrying _their_ message. Whose was it, then? From who did he receive it?

Yes, we have to trust what he says about this issue, but this seems to be one of the things we can trust. What it all means, on the other hand, is another issue.

Well, no, why should I trust him and not Ron Hubbard? Both invented being given some narrative.

Historians try to read between the lines all the time -- that is what most ancient historical criticism consists in nowadays as far as I can tell.

Except I'm just saying, "where's the freaking evidence"?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ever heard of sockpuppets? People make up fictive character that agree with them, or who are more authoritative about some issue, to this day. There are even some forums out there where all that happens in some threads is 20 of one single guy's sockpuppets agreeing with each other.

And, really, from _whom_ did he receive his information? He's not even consistent there. By the time he tells the road to Damascus tall tale again by the end of Acts, this time he _did_ receive a lot more directly from his hallucination of Jesus on the spot. So it seems to me like, yes, in the end he does fall back to "God told me."

Well, of course, there is always the possibility that he was telling a story. But it certainly doesn't look like that. An internet forum is one thing. A guy sending a letter to a group of people with whom he spent a good deal of time trying to convince them that the end of the world is coming soon is another.

From whom did he receive his message -- no one know precisely because he doesn't say. He simply says that he received that particular message from others. That implies that he didn't make it all up.

Paul's telling of the road from Damascus story in Acts is not Paul's telling of it (if that makes sense). It is Luke's recreation of a speech that he puts in Paul's mouth. Paul's story is extremely sketchy in his letters. He barely mentions it.

And, really, from _whom_ did he receive his information? From the Ebionites it wasn't.

Don't know. It might have been originally. I mean, what does he say -- that Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected. That's pretty much it. That could easily have come from the Ebionites.

He clearly changed the story afterwards.

Sorry, gotta go hear a concert. Be back to finish later.

 

[HansMustermann]

Except for all the Church fathers who spent much ink classifying the Ebionites and Nazarenes as heretics for _not_ believing in a physical resurrection of Jesus, or rather: not yet.

The Pharisees generally did believe in literal bodily resurrection of the dead at the end, in the beginning of the messianic age. A notion that they seem to have borrowed from the Zoroastrians. (While the Sadducees believed in no afterlife at all, for example.)

Now there is still debate whether Jesus himself was a Pharisee. While he's presented as in conflict with them in the Bible, the Bible actually presents a distorted view of their teachings, and Jesus's preaching aren't too far off from Pharisee texts from that age. But the sect of James and the gang seems to have been fairly aligned to the Pharisee view, including in demanding that Paul undergoes a purification ritual.

So it's inaccurate to say that they wouldn't believe in resurrection. Of course they believed in resurrection.

But they didn't think it happened _yet_. They expected Jesus to resurrect any day now and fulfill his mission as a Messiah, initiating those end times and messianic age.

It only makes sense to connect that with Paul's belief that it already happened, if Paul was an even more die-hard apocalyptic and genuinely thought that the end times had _already_ started. Essentially he's inventing (or had hallucinated) the occurence of the final act that starts the apocalypse.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Except for all the Church fathers who spent much ink classifying the Ebionites and Nazarenes as heretics for _not_ believing in a physical resurrection of Jesus, or rather: not yet.

The Pharisees generally did believe in literal bodily resurrection of the dead at the end, in the beginning of the messianic age. A notion that they seem to have borrowed from the Zoroastrians. (While the Sadducees believed in no afterlife at all, for example.)

Now there is still debate whether Jesus himself was a Pharisee. While he's presented as in conflict with them in the Bible, the Bible actually presents a distorted view of their teachings, and Jesus's preaching aren't too far off from Pharisee texts from that age. But the sect of James and the gang seems to have been fairly aligned to the Pharisee view, including in demanding that Paul undergoes a purification ritual.

So it's inaccurate to say that they wouldn't believe in resurrection. Of course they believed in resurrection.

But they didn't think it happened _yet_. They expected Jesus to resurrect any day now and fulfill his mission as a Messiah, initiating those end times and messianic age.

It only makes sense to connect that with Paul's belief that it already happened, if Paul was an even more die-hard apocalyptic and genuinely thought that the end times had _already_ started. Essentially he's inventing (or had hallucinated) the occurence of the final act that starts the apocalypse.

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the Ebionites not believing in the resurrection of Jesus. My understanding is that they did believe he was resurrected but that he was not divine. For them he was just a man who was adopted by God. If they did not believe that Jesus was resurrected, what in the world distinguished them from other Jews? How could they even be labelled a Christian sect?

Are you saying that they believed in Jesus' resurrection but not that it was a bodily resurrection? What other kind is there?

If the early group that included Peter and James were Ebionite, they seemed to believe in Jesus' resurrection -- at least as far as what Paul said. He basically relates that the only big disagreement was over circumcision and that the only message that the "pillars" insisted on was that he preach giving to the poor -- which was pretty clearly an Ebionite belief, at least from what I have read.

Are you sure that you haven't confused the Ebionite belief that the resurrected Jesus would return as the Messiah (he had been adopted by God in their scheme, died as a sacrifice, been resurrected to show that God had accepted the sacrifice and would return soon as the messiah to usher in the kingdom) with the idea that they did not believe that he had been resurrected?

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm saying that the more we learn about what those guys actually believed that actually knew Jesus, the more of a ridiculous disconnect there is between that and what Paul preached in their name. Which would explain why they considered Paul an apostate.

And yes, basically that's the whole point: they weren't the kind of Christians as we inherited "Christianity" from Paul. They never considered themselves a brand new religion, only Paul seems to have thought that. They seem to have been a Pharisee sub-sect which still considered themselves followers of Judaism, and thought that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah. (A very different notion from the Christian Messiah.)

I don't know where Paul got his ideas, and whether he was a plain old liar or just insane. But they weren't what the actual followers of Jesus believed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm saying that the more we learn about what those guys actually believed that actually knew Jesus, the more of a ridiculous disconnect there is between that and what Paul preached in their name. Which would explain why they considered Paul an apostate.

And yes, basically that's the whole point: they weren't the kind of Christians as we inherited "Christianity" from Paul. They never considered themselves a brand new religion, only Paul seems to have thought that. They seem to have been a Pharisee sub-sect which still considered themselves followers of Judaism, and thought that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah. (A very different notion from the Christian Messiah.)

I don't know where Paul got his ideas, and whether he was a plain old liar or just insane. But they weren't what the actual followers of Jesus believed.

We mostly agree, then, but I'm not sure that Paul saw what he was doing as creating a new religion. I'm not exactly sure where Paul got his ideas either, but they seem to evolve a bit through his letters, so he was trying to make sense of something.

Ehrman's reconstruction of what he thinks happened is that Paul began with his "resurrection experience" and worked backward. If Jesus were resurrected, then he must have been the chosen one of God. But he died on a tree (cross) which means that he was cursed. But if he was the chosen one of God he couldn't have done anything to bring a curse on himself, else he wouldn't have been chosen. So, he must have assumed the sins of others.

Everything else follows from the idea that Jesus' resurrection was the first and the rest was obviously soon to follow; and the fact that Jews rejected him so he turned to gentiles and had to argue that circumcision was not necessary. He probably thought this was not a big deal -- the kingdom coming in a few years and all -- but it turned out to be one doozy of change in its consequences. He had to justify it by the whole faith instead of works bit.

I don't think Paul was necessarily insane or a liar; he was just wrong about quite a bit.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

We certainly don't have evidence that Paul did all of this to win a bet, nor to make his first million, which we seem to have in Hubbard's case. (Depends on which 50's SF writer you find a more credible source).

...snip...

You might want to try another example than Hubbard.


...snip...

I think whether Hubbard is a good example or not depends on how you decide to approach it. My approach is very much an "amateur armchair anthropologist" so what I am looking for (and I admit it is a bias) is examples of how religions have come about and how the leaders of those religions created their religion, and for this Hubbard is a very accessible source. I freely admit that my approach starts with disregarding that there was anything at all supernatural in the origins of Christianity.

 

[amb]

We can safely disregard any supernatural event in any religion in the world. Just some smart leader type dude who today would be a used car/ life insurance salesman. Someone with the gift of the gab. Studies have shown that there is at least one in every hundred people who posses such skills. Obviously Paul was one.

 

[Limbo]

We can safely disregard any supernatural event in any religion in the world.

Maybe YOU can, but some of us aren't so lucky (or unlucky). Some of us have actually experienced so-called 'supernatural events' and can't disregard them.

And some of us are familiar with the parapsychological literature firsthand, as opposed to learning about it secondhand from debunkers, Hollywood, and comicbooks and so we know it can't be disregarded. Ignored, yes. Mocked, yes. Spun, yes. Disregarded, no.

Some people need the comfort of disregarding things they don't understand or don't like philosophically, so they can have a little certainty in their lives. Keeps things nice and simple.

 

[amb]

Maybe YOU can, but some of us aren't so lucky (or unlucky). Some of us have actually experienced so-called 'supernatural events' and can't disregard them.

What, and you didn't go for the million dollar challenge?

 

[Simon39759]

My impression was that Paul was vaguely familiar with something not too dissimilar with what the Ebionites believed.
Then some personal religious experience, on the road of Damascus, convinced him of the truth of these beliefs (in my opinion, TLE would fit pretty well).
He then made his own version of the story, borrowing from what he knew from early Christianity but filling the gaps by his own creations.
Later, when confronted with other versions of the story that clashed with his own assumptions, he mostly rejected them.
His "memories" and impressions slowly evolved over time over the retellings by him and others.
This version of the story, quickly over grew the original movement (the meme was more popular, not restricted only to Jews AND they had more money...)

 

[Bill Thompson]

He was eaten. They thought his body was bread and wine.

 

[amb]

He was eaten. They thought his body was bread and wine.

Cannibals??

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Let's start with something simple. Let's assume Jesus existed. Let's assume he died on the cross via crucification. Who are the eyewitnesses?
We can discuss their claims later.

There are two eye-witness claims :
* 2 Peter
* Paul's comments

Here is my analysis of alleged eye-witnesses :


Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.

the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.

G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.

G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.

G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.

G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.

Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.

James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.

Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.

the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.

Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.

Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus

Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.

So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.


There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.

Just later claims and books, and claims about books.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

edit

 

[amb]

Amen!!

 

[Cainkane1]

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".

Either that or a plagery. pagan myths abound with Gods comming down to earth, dying for humanity and then being ressurrected.

 

[amb]

So true. Only this one out of the hundreds if not thousands was helped by the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine in making it one of the two religions of the Empire. The other was a pagan religion, this guy would trade with a Hitler if it suited his purpose. Christianity just happened to suit his purpose at that time.

I agree with all Kapyong says above. I was about to post similar, but he says all I wanted to post.

 

[JimBrown257]

What are the possible answers to the question of the resurrection? Here is what I think:

1) He came back by divine means
2) He came back to life by paranormal means
3) He was just "sleeping"
5) He died and that was it
6) He had a twin (a la: a bad soap opera)
7) It was a trick, something like those Voodoo priests do
8) There was no Jesus
9) The body was stolen

...I'm sure there are many more optiosn but the important thing is that, unless it was #1, Christianity is a canard. Of course, what should be important are the values but what the religious people seem to say is all that matters is you truly believe that Jesus was the son of god...their god. That seems like arbritray nonsense to me but that's what they say is the important thing.

There are a few things I think are important. First, they say Jesus came back for 40 days. I have learned to be very weary of Christians using the number 40 as it seems to be a hallmark of their made-up stories (I have recently noticed that they often say there are 40 contemporary, non-Christian, extra-Biblical references to Jesus which, of course, there aren't).

Then there are the other savior/resurrection stories which make it even more difficult to believe that this one just happens to be true.

The main thing for me, however, is what motives there might be for his disciples to make up this story (if he really lived and was killed). I think it is very likely that they were etremely disillusioned when the person they thought was god was killed. People who have that much invested in something emotionally will often be unable to handle the truth. I think it is very likely for them to make-up and accept a story that Jesus came back to life because it helped rationalize something they just weren't able to deal with. We see people get drawn into things and think that regular people are gods all the time; it happens still today. We know those people are just being tricked yet they tell us all sorts of stories of miracles and Woo. To me, this Jesus business is no different.

Or Jesus really ce back to life and all that magic stuff is true.

I realize many of the followers of the alleged Christ are good people and do great things, but I don't think there is any way a rational person can not realize that Christianity is ultimately just another false religion with a false Messiah.