Resurrection ONE theory

[liamconnor]

Yes, yes, I have done this before; but the diversity of skepticism is pretty huge here (after all, we have skeptics dueling with skeptics over the mere "existence" of "a" Jesus!).

So, once again, I offer a list of what numerous scholars, representing a wide range of theological convictions, would agree upon as bedrock.

Previously I made individual points topics of its own thread, but that seemed to be annoying.

So, I offer what I believe to be the whole list.

Once more, it will be noticed I do not beg the question of the miraculous; so please read the "subjective qualifications" (say of #12, "BELIEVED") carefully; i.e. when I start out with "A" Jesus, obviously the quotations signify that I am not begging the question of the "Gospel/Christian tradition" Jesus.

So, here is the list: this OP is for those who have no qualms with this list. The question is, how can we explain the origins of Christianity, accounting for this list.

1. “A� Yeshua of Nazareth existed who:
2. Was baptized by John the Baptist
3. Was regarded by his contemporaries as a miraculous healer and exorcist
4. Attracted numerous disciples (no less than 500).
5. Selected from a mass of followers 12, who would especially represent him
6. Shied away from being called “Christ� and used the self-referential “Son of Man�
7. Caused a scene in the temple
8. Was brought to trial by the Jewish authorities and condemned on grounds of blasphemy
9. Was condemned by Pontius Pilate, and assigned to death by crucifixion.
10. His corpse was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea, a Jewish aristocrat, shortly before Sabbath (Friday evening, about 6 p.m.)
11. On Sunday morning women disciples visited the tomb to perform the customary burial preparations. Upon arrival, they discovered the tomb empty.
12. Some male disciples arrived at the tomb and discovered it empty.
13 Shortly after this discovery, a group of Jesus’ male disciples (about 500) believed they had encountered and fellowshipped with, collectively and privately, their risen master.
14. Driven by this belief, they proclaimed their dead Master alive, and exalted to heaven as God’s Son. They proclaimed that this incident fulfilled all their ancient hopes as a nation.
15. A Pharisee named Saul/Paul persecuted this movement in its earliest stages.
16. This Pharisee, on his way to Damascus, had an experience in which he believed the leader of the movement he was persecuting appeared to him, which resulted in his conversion
17. Saul/Paul visited Peter and James within three to six years after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth



One theory is that Jesus was actually raised, actually appeared to his disciples, and actually revealed himself to Paul.


What are other theories?

(PS I have updated the list in light of responses. NOT because they raised NEW questions, but because it was apparent that certain obvious repercussions were already implied: for instance, I thought it obvious that, in the above list, the male disciples BELIEVED the tomb was miraculously vacated, since they BELIEVED they had encountered the risen Jesus and fellowshipped with him. But one post suggested the male disciples stole the body. So (bewildered) I had to specify something I thought obvious).

[Divine Insight]

9. Was condemned by Pontius Pilate, and assigned to death by crucifixion.

Well, that would blow the Christian Gospels clean out of the water then. The Christian Gospels claim that Pontius Pilate exonerated Jesus of all charges and found no fault with him, and even publicly washed his hands of the whole affair.

Therefore if it is accepted by theologians as "bedrock" that Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus and assigned to him the death penalty by crucifixion then we can know that the Christian Gospels have it all wrong.

[Talishi]

Well, that would blow the Christian Gospels clean out of the water then. The Christian Gospels claim that Pontius Pilate exonerated Jesus of all charges and found no fault with him, and even publicly washed his hands of the whole affair.

That's the revisionist history after Jerusalem fell and Christians were primarily marketing to Romans for converts. In reality, Pilate was...not a nice man. Nice men didn't get to be governors of unruly provinces on the Roman marches. Pilate would crucify at the drop of a hat. Any hat.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Yes, yes, I have done this before; but the diversity of skepticism is pretty huge here (after all, we have skeptics dueling with skeptics over the mere "existence" of "a" Jesus!).

So, once again, I offer a list of what numerous scholars, representing a wide range of theological convictions, would agree upon as bedrock.

Previously I made individual points topics of its own thread, but that seemed to be annoying.

So, I offer what I believe to be the whole list.

Once more, it will be noticed I do not beg the question of the miraculous; so please read the "subjective qualifications" (say of #12, "BELIEVED") carefully; i.e. when I start out with "A" Jesus, obviously the quotations signify that I am not begging the question of the "Gospel/Christian tradition" Jesus.

So, here is the list: this OP is for those who have no qualms with this list. The question is, how can we explain the origins of Christianity, accounting for this list.

1. “A� Yeshua of Nazareth existed who:
2. Was baptized by John the Baptist
3. Was regarded by his contemporaries as a miraculous healer and exorcist
4. Attracted numerous disciples (no less than 500).
5. Selected from a mass of followers 12, who would especially represent him
6. Shied away from being called “Christ� and used the self-referential “Son of Man�
7. Caused a scene in the temple
8. Was brought to trial by the Jewish authorities and condemned on grounds of blasphemy
9. Was condemned by Pontius Pilate, and assigned to death by crucifixion.
10. His corpse was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea, a Jewish aristocrat, shortly before Sabbath (Friday evening, about 6 p.m.)
11. On Sunday morning women disciples visited the tomb to perform the customary burial preparations. Upon arrival, they discovered the tomb empty.
12. Shortly after this discovery, a group of Jesus’ male disciples (about 500) believed they had encountered and fellowshipped with, collectively and privately, their risen master.
13. Driven by this belief, they proclaimed their dead Master alive, and exalted to heaven as God’s Son. They proclaimed that this incident fulfilled all their ancient hopes as a nation.
14. A Pharisee named Saul/Paul persecuted this movement in its earliest stages.
15. This Pharisee, on his way to Damascus, had an experience in which he believed the leader of the movement he was persecuting appeared to him, which resulted in his conversion
16. Saul/Paul visited Peter and James within three to six years after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth



One theory is that Jesus was actually raised, actually appeared to his disciples, and actually revealed himself to Paul.


What are other theories?

Well, there's this one:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 11e6d23961

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Do these accommodate all the points given in the list?


I don't think so. The "stolen body theory" seems to fly in the face of "the disciples believed they encountered and fellowshipped with their risen master."


I mean, if they stole the body and knew where it was, why believe they had encountered the risen Jesus (by risen, we mean, bodily.....the original corpse itself was reanimated).



So, your theory does not account for the bedrock.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

liamconnor wrote:

9. Was condemned by Pontius Pilate, and assigned to death by crucifixion.

Well, that would blow the Christian Gospels clean out of the water then. The Christian Gospels claim that Pontius Pilate exonerated Jesus of all charges and found no fault with him, and even publicly washed his hands of the whole affair.

Therefore if it is accepted by theologians as "bedrock" that Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus and assigned to him the death penalty by crucifixion then we can know that the Christian Gospels have it all wrong.

I don't see how. The proposition makes no comment upon the details of the condemnation; ultimately, the crucifixion was a Roman affair. There is zero evidence that Pontius Pilate officially set Jesus free.


If this is your claim: that Pontius Pilate did not officially condemn Jesus....then what else do you not accept? Jesus could hardly have been crucified if the Roman government did not condemn him. Unless you are now claiming that the Jewish authorities managed to crucify Jesus against Roman sanction!


Conclusion: Jesus was ultimately condemned (i.e. sentenced) by Pontius Pilate to crucifixion. It makes zero difference that P.P. had psychological struggles with this. He was human, not a machine. He was not confident with the "justice" of the sentence, but was confident with the "results"---i.e. pacifying a mob. Nothing historically strange here.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

liamconnor wrote:

9. Was condemned by Pontius Pilate, and assigned to death by crucifixion.

Well, that would blow the Christian Gospels clean out of the water then. The Christian Gospels claim that Pontius Pilate exonerated Jesus of all charges and found no fault with him, and even publicly washed his hands of the whole affair.

Therefore if it is accepted by theologians as "bedrock" that Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus and assigned to him the death penalty by crucifixion then we can know that the Christian Gospels have it all wrong.

I don't see how. The proposition makes no comment upon the details of the condemnation; ultimately, the crucifixion was a Roman affair. There is zero evidence that Pontius Pilate officially set Jesus free.


If this is your claim: that Pontius Pilate did not officially condemn Jesus....then what else do you not accept? Jesus could hardly have been crucified if the Roman government did not condemn him. Unless you are now claiming that the Jewish authorities managed to crucify Jesus against Roman sanction!


Conclusion: Jesus was ultimately condemned (i.e. sentenced) by Pontius Pilate to crucifixion. It makes zero difference that P.P. had psychological struggles with this. He was human, not a machine. He was not confident with the "justice" of the sentence, but was confident with the "results"---i.e. pacifying a mob. Nothing historically strange here.

I have no problem accepting that Pontius Pilate might have officially condemned Jesus. You're the one who listed this in your list as "bedrock" historical conclusion.

I all did was point out the fact that if this is a bedrock conclusion then the Gospels are necessarily false. The Gospels have Ponitius Pilate exonerating Jesus, proclaiming that he finds no fault with Jesus, and washing his hands of the whole affair.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my "opinions".

If you believe that it's a historical bedrock fact that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified, then this conflicts with what the Christians Gospels have to say.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

I have no problem accepting that Pontius Pilate might have officially condemned Jesus. You're the one who listed this in your list as "bedrock" historical conclusion.

I all did was point out the fact that if this is a bedrock conclusion then the Gospels are necessarily false. The Gospels have Ponitius Pilate exonerating Jesus, proclaiming that he finds no fault with Jesus, and washing his hands of the whole affair.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my "opinions".

If you believe that it's a historical bedrock fact that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified, then this conflicts with what the Christians Gospels have to say.

Wrong on the gospels:

According to the gospels, the "official decree" of Pontius Pilate is to crucify Jesus. It matters nothing whether he was hesitant or several times tried to get Jesus off the hook.

Ultimately, P.P. made the decision; it means nothing that he did not want to execute Jesus.

the gospels make his wishy-washiness clear; they make equally clear his final decision to have Jesus crucified.



You seem to agree with all this.

Are you attempting to sneak into a historical debate a "Scripture is Inerrant" debate (i.e. a doctrinal debate)? It would seem so since the ultimate conclusion you had was that:

I all did was point out the fact that if this is a bedrock conclusion then the Gospels are necessarily false.

But you already know I don't care about "Divine Inspiration" or "Inerrancy".


None of my arguments rest upon such. So why bring it up?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 4 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Do these accommodate all the points given in the list?


I don't think so. The "stolen body theory" seems to fly in the face of "the disciples believed they encountered and fellowshipped with their risen master."


I mean, if they stole the body and knew where it was, why believe they had encountered the risen Jesus (by risen, we mean, bodily.....the original corpse itself was reanimated).



So, your theory does not account for the bedrock.

Reading the entire theory reveals that the body was not "stolen" at all. But I invite everyone to read the entire theory.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5adb235cda...

But let's address your points one at a time.

1. “A� Yeshua of Nazareth existed who: Okay
2. Was baptized by John the Baptist Okay
3. Was regarded by his contemporaries as a miraculous healer and exorcist Okay
4. Attracted numerous disciples (no less than 500). Acts places the number at about 120. The number 500 is disputable.
5. Selected from a mass of followers 12, who would especially represent him Also selected 70 individuals who would represent him. (Luke.10:1)
6. Shied away from being called “Christ� and used the self-referential “Son of Man� Okay
7. Caused a scene in the temple Okay
8. Was brought to trial by the Jewish authorities and condemned on grounds of blasphemy Okay
9. Was condemned by Pontius Pilate, and assigned to death by crucifixion. Okay
10. His corpse was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea, a Jewish aristocrat, shortly before Sabbath (Friday evening, about 6 p.m.) Was taken to Joseph's tomb to be washed and prepared according to Jewish custom. No funeral rites are mentioned.
11. On Sunday morning women disciples visited the tomb to perform the customary burial preparations. Upon arrival, they discovered the tomb empty. You left out a great big chunk, didn't you!
12. Some male disciples arrived at the tomb and discovered it empty. Peter visited the tomb.
13 Shortly after this discovery, a group of Jesus’ male disciples (about 500) believed they had encountered and fellowshipped with, collectively and privately, their risen master. This claim is taken from a letter written by Paul about a quarter of a century after the time the execution of Jesus was supposed to have taken place, to the church in Corinth. No actual 500 individuals can be provided. No testimonies from any of the supposed 500 exist. Paul himself was not personally present to witness this claimed event.
14. Driven by this belief, they proclaimed their dead Master alive, and exalted to heaven as God’s Son. They proclaimed that this incident fulfilled all their ancient hopes as a nation. The disciples of Jesus and only the disciples of Jesus claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus. The disciples of Jesus and only the disciples claimed to have witnessed the "risen" Jesus fly up in to the sky and disappear into the clouds
15. A Pharisee named Saul/Paul persecuted this movement in its earliest stages. Okay
16. This Pharisee, on his way to Damascus, had an experience in which he believed the leader of the movement he was persecuting appeared to him, which resulted in his conversion. While on his way to Damascus Paul collapsed and had to be taken into the city. Deathly ill and and delirious from extreme dehydration, and while being cared for and prayed for by a Christian man, Paul believed that he experienced a vision of the years dead Jesus. As a result Paul became a confirmed Christian.
17. Saul/Paul visited Peter and James within three to six years after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth Gal.1 mentions the visit, but gives no time frame.



One theory is that Jesus was actually raised, actually appeared to his disciples, and actually revealed himself to Paul.

What are other theories?

The disciples of Jesus moved the body of Jesus to another location and then spread the false rumor that Jesus had risen from the grave. Something only THEY claimed to have been witness to. Exactly as the chief priests indicated that they thought the disciples intended to do. (Matthew 27:64)

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

I have no problem accepting that Pontius Pilate might have officially condemned Jesus. You're the one who listed this in your list as "bedrock" historical conclusion.

I all did was point out the fact that if this is a bedrock conclusion then the Gospels are necessarily false. The Gospels have Ponitius Pilate exonerating Jesus, proclaiming that he finds no fault with Jesus, and washing his hands of the whole affair.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my "opinions".

If you believe that it's a historical bedrock fact that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified, then this conflicts with what the Christians Gospels have to say.

Wrong on the gospels:

According to the gospels, the "official decree" of Pontius Pilate is to crucify Jesus. It matters nothing whether he was hesitant or several times tried to get Jesus off the hook.

Ultimately, P.P. made the decision; it means nothing that he did not want to execute Jesus.

the gospels make his wishy-washiness clear; they make equally clear his final decision to have Jesus crucified.



You seem to agree with all this.

I don't agree with anything you just said here.

The Gospel don't have Pontius Pilate being wish-washy and giving in to the demands of the Chief priests. Far from it.

Luke.23:4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

John.18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

John.19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

Pilate totally exonerates Jesus of any wrongdoing. And the above are only a few of the verses where this is made clear.

Matthew 27:
[22] Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
[23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
[24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Here the Gospels have Pilate washing his hands of the whole affair and saying to the Jewish Chief Priests see ye to it.

So it would be the Jewish Priests who had this done not Pilate.

So if any historians have Pilate condemning and crucifying Jesus as an enemy of Rome, then this contradicts the Christian Gospels.

In fact, this is a strong argument that the Jews give against the Christian Gospels. The idea that Jewish Priests would have called for a Roman Style crucifixion of anyone doesn't historically fit in with what the Jews believed.

The Jews believe that the Gospels were written specifically to try to pin the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews themselves. In fact, this opens up a whole question of the political nature of these Gospels.

Who was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus? The Romans? Or the Jews?

According to the Gospels it was the Jews who "overrode" Pontius Pilate forcing Pilate to give his consent for a Roman Style Crucifixion of a Jew against his own exoneration of the man.

You claim that there is some sort of "bedrock" history here.

Looks far more like quicksand to me.

If Pilate condemned Jesus, then the Gospels are wrong.

If Pilate exonerated Jesus then it's highly unlikely he would have gone along with having Roman Soliders crucify Jesus anyway.

The whole thing smells extremely fishy and could hardly be called "bedrock history".