Jesus and the Early Church

[liamconnor]

This OP has a slightly different bent than my previous (historical evidence); but in truth, what follows was what I always intended for the other. I am guilty of falsely advertising that thread by the title. You will see the title of this thread is posed as a question, and the term "Resurrection" does not occur.

My proposal is that, applying basic historical methodology (which is a fancy term for common sense) to the relevant texts (canonical and non) we can gleam quite a bit about Jesus and the movement which followed his death.

NOte that I am not interested at all in defending the resurrection here; but I do think we need to be responsible in assessing the data. Even if you think ANY explanation is better than a MIRACULOUS one, still, surely you think some natural explanations are better than others, and that some are just plain silly?! It is my hope that the majority of members here have the intellectual honesty (and curiosity!) to weed out the more ridiculous ones.

(I should add, I have met only one member on this forum who proves the exception. He said, quite explicitly, that he did not care whether the explanation was good or bad, so long as there was even one; that was some time ago. If you fall into this class, then we are immediately at an impasse).

I quote, as a guiding principle for history, E.P. Sanders (an agnostic, and one of my favorite, if not my favorite, historians of the period) "One should begin with what is relatively secure and work out to more uncertain points."

I give what amounts to a consensus among scholars by quoting the eminent skeptic Bart Ehrman; I can give other names upon request. I then provide what theories these positions exclude.

“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.�

This means that, according to Ehrman and others, arguments against the historicity of Jesus are off the table.

“I don’t doubt at all that some disciples claimed (to have seen the risen Jesus). We don’t have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about 25 years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don’t think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event (i.e. the crucifixion)�

So then, according to Ehrman, Paul is 1) a historical person, 2) is not fabricating the entire list in 1 Cor. 15; perhaps he was tricked by some, but he was honest.

You see that Ehrman grants that Paul had visited the Jerusalem church, and met with at least Peter. I think we can infer with a very high degree of probability that something like that list in 1 Cor. 15 therefore goes back to 36 AD. It is highly doubtful that when Paul visited Peter, the two played craps. The term Paul uses in Galatians 1:18 ("Then, three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days" NAS) is ἱστο�έω pronounced historeo, from which is derived our term "History". It has the connotation of "inquire, investigate, search".

“There is no doubt that Paul believed that he saw Jesus’ real but glorified body raised from the dead.�

This means that Paul was not a fraud. Delusional, perhaps, but not a liar. It should also be noticed that Paul believed he saw Jesus' "glorified" body. Some on this forum talk of the resurrection as if it were mere revivification. This is not true. What the disciples preached was that what all Jews (well, the majority) believed their god would do at the end of times, he did for Jesus in the middle. The Jewish resurrection was into a new mode of bodily life.

I give a list of historians who concede an empty tomb, but do not believe in the resurrection: Dale Allison, Bostock, Carnely, Ehrman, Fisher Grant and Vermes. I am familiar with Vermes, Ehrman and Allison. The three others I have not read, but have found them cited in scholarly works.


So then, two questions:

Which of these conclusions do you agree/disagree with and why?

What else do you think we can infer from the data (and please back it up)?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 9 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Okay.

I would push this (Jesus' existence), but since you only speak for a minority, and do not belong to that minority, I shall let it pass. If anyone else belongs to that minority, they can chime in.

I confess I pass over some of your longer texts.

You should keep in mind that if someone provides you with a long and detailed response, that in return opens them up to a detailed explanation on exactly why they are wrong. If you have the superior position, a detailed exposition by your opponent should give you the advantage. Not responding at all is more akin to jerking one's hand away from a hot stove. It leaves the distinct impression that one is attempting to avoid being burned. On the other hand, leaving one's hand on a stove once the stove has fully demonstrated itself to be hot is a useless gesture of bravado.

That is fine. You can think I avoid long posts because they are intimidating, I can't change that. Of course, you can test that theory by engaging me, as I have invited you here, on a single topic.

[Danmark]

[quote="liamconnor

“There is no doubt that Paul believed that he saw Jesus’ real but glorified body raised from the dead.�

This means that Paul was not a fraud. Delusional, perhaps, but not a liar. It should also be noticed that Paul believed he saw Jesus' "glorified" body. [/quote]
You do not make it clear who you are quoting [Ehrman, I assume], nor do you give a basis for this conclusion. I do not necessarily maintain Paul is a liar rather than delusional, but merely point out your conclusion does not follow from facts sufficiently laid out. This is a constant problem with your arguments. You make a an unsupported factual claim, and from there you leap to a conclusion that does not follow, even if your claim were true.

More importantly, you are not even addressing the most important question, which is the likelihood that Paul WAS delusional or otherwise had had an experience that left him blind and without food or water for 3 days before he reported what he thought had happened. Brilliant and well educated tho' Paul may have been, everything points to the probability he had had a medical event that rendered his mind unreliable for whatever had happened 3 days prior to his recovery.

[liamconnor]

[quote="liamconnor

“There is no doubt that Paul believed that he saw Jesus’ real but glorified body raised from the dead.�

This means that Paul was not a fraud. Delusional, perhaps, but not a liar. It should also be noticed that Paul believed he saw Jesus' "glorified" body.

You do not make it clear who you are quoting [Ehrman, I assume], nor do you give a basis for this conclusion. I do not necessarily maintain Paul is a liar rather than delusional, but merely point out your conclusion does not follow from facts sufficiently laid out. This is a constant problem with your arguments. You make a an unsupported factual claim, and from there you leap to a conclusion that does not follow, even if your claim were true.

More importantly, you are not even addressing the most important question, which is the likelihood that Paul WAS delusional or otherwise had had an experience that left him blind and without food or water for 3 days before he reported what he thought had happened. Brilliant and well educated tho' Paul may have been, everything points to the probability he had had a medical event that rendered his mind unreliable for whatever had happened 3 days prior to his recovery.

I explained above why I gave these quotes: it was not to intimidate into submission by pure "authority". I merely wished to show that a wide range of scholars did in fact agree on a few things. I did this so that we might dispense with some of the "ground work" (for instance, it would be terribly counter-productive to get into a debate about the empty tomb, and then meet someone chiming in about the very existence of Jesus; or angry about the morality of god during the flood. I do not feel obliged to dance at everyone's whim).

I think I did give a source for Ehrman. At this point, it matters not. I am willing (and always really wanted) to work purely from the ancient documents. So long as it is systematic. In the middle of a debate about Paul's experience on the way to Damascus, I don't want to read a reply that argues about the historicity of the flood; or why I am not a Mormon; or whether Jesus really existed.

Now, someone has chosen "the empty tomb" for debate which has very good parameters.

You have brought up Paul's experience on the way to Damascus--Can you form this topic into a title for discussion? After all, there are more fundamental questions that need to be addressed: for instance

1) how many hours did Paul actually fast--did "three days" for an ancient mean 72 hours? Every scholar I have read (many of them agnostics) states as matter of fact that Jews used an "inclusive" reckoning, and counted the "new day" as starting at sunset (hence we have Jesus crucified shortly before sunset, reported to have been raised at least by early Sunday, yet the period (three days) for us technically amounts to 72 hours.

Applied to Paul: if Paul got to Damascus an hour before sunset (which let's say is at 8 PM) on, say, our Tuesday, and began fasting (that is, fasting at 7 PM), that would be day one, even though it was just an hour (fasting from 7 PM to sunset at 8 PM). Day two would extend from 8 PM sunset on our Tuesday to 8 PM Sunset on our Weds. Thus we have 25 hours. If he began eating soon on the third day, say at 8:30 PM on Weds night, he will have fasted 25 hours and 30 minute. Three days for a Jew here = 25 hours and 30 minutes. I am not arguing that specific duration here. We would have to discuss it. But it is far from concluded that he fasted 72 hours: after all, they didn't have stop watches.

2) What effects does fasting even for 72 hours have on the mind? Do studies show that people are delusional after such time? What effects would fasting for 25 and 1/2 hours have?

3) Or should we discuss the historicity of the documents: after all, your knowledge of Paul's fasting comes from Acts; Acts itself reports a vision being given to a Ananias by Jesus immediately after this account. I am assuming you disregard that scene since it would greatly validate Paul's testimony (Ananias was not fasting). So now you and I have to talk about the historicity of certain documents; why we should accept one and not the other as historical.

You see how complicated this is getting?

In the meantime I will engage the historicity of the empty tomb until you have narrowed your topic for discussion.

[liamconnor]

I give what amounts to a consensus among scholars by quoting the eminent skeptic Bart Ehrman; I can give other names upon request. I then provide what theories these positions exclude.

“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.�

This means that, according to Ehrman and others, arguments against the historicity of Jesus are off the table.

Perhaps a minor point on language, but this is important because it is an example of exaggerating what others have said. Ehrman said that the fact Jesus was crucified at the order of Pontius Pilate is one of the more certain facts of history. This is not the equivalent of your statement, "arguments against the historicity of Jesus are off the table." Arguments about the historicity of Jesus are not "off the table." I'm not interested in those arguments, but it is wrong to say they should not be discussed at all.

okay. And if I hadn't spent loads of energy in other threads pointing out that I think history is a soft science, never every yielding mathematical certainty, I would say very good. But I have, and I know you read them.

Ehrman says "certain FACTS". At that point, I don't really know what to do. Does that mean it is a 61 % fact? a 89% fact? I interpret this as meaning that Ehrman thinks (as I do) that only UNREASONABLE doubt would ever call this into question. I do not feel obliged to answer UNREASONABLE doubt. Would you feel obliged to answer UNREASONABLE doubt?

Now, perhaps it isn't unreasonable to doubt this. I am happy to discuss this. I only ask that the challenges are from sincerity. That you actually do doubt the historicity of Jesus, and are not just playing a game with me.

[liamconnor]

The topic of the empty tomb has been suggested. Historical or not?

This means the topic is NOT: was Jesus even historical? That is a separate question to be asked elsewhere.

Let's just start with the tomb at all. Was Jesus even buried in a tomb?

Archaeology and Josephus demonstrate that in Jerusalem Jews were buried in tombs.

1 Cor. 15:4 does not say "tomb" only "buried" which is vague. So just on that verse, we must be neutral.

The gospels all agree on "tomb". (Remember, these are just ancient documents. No one here is talking about inspiration or any thing else. And we aren't here discussing the resurrection. We are just asking about some dude named Jesus and his fate immediately following crucifixion).

So, we have archaeology and two sources.

What reasons do we have for questioning he was even buried in a tomb at all?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Let's just start with the tomb at all. Was Jesus even buried in a tomb?

Archaeology and Josephus demonstrate that in Jerusalem Jews were buried in tombs.

Criminals and the indigent however would normally have been consigned to a common pit and covered with quick lime. This would have been the fate of the body of Jesus had not Joseph intervened.

Hand hewn stone tombs were the perks of the rich, for the obvious reason that they were very expensive. For the common people the answer typically was that they used mountain caves, or grottoes as the resting place for family members. These would be used as the resting place for entire generations of family members. Often these caves or grottoes would have the name of the family or families associated with them carved at the entrance.

1 Cor. 15:4 does not say "tomb" only "buried" which is vague. So just on that verse, we must be neutral.

The gospels all agree on "tomb". (Remember, these are just ancient documents. No one here is talking about inspiration or any thing else. And we aren't here discussing the resurrection. We are just asking about some dude named Jesus and his fate immediately following crucifixion).

So, we have archaeology and two sources.

What reasons do we have for questioning he was even buried in a tomb at all?

The Gospels indicate that the body of Jesus was taken to Joseph's new rock cut tomb to be washed and wrapped because the hour was late and the tomb was conveniently "nigh at hand" to the place where Jesus was executed. The washing and preparation of the body is described. But not any burial rites. Christians have assumed for centuries that Joseph's tomb was intended to be the burial site of Jesus. But why would Joseph inter a non family member in his personal and very expensive a new tomb that had recently been completed and which he had ordered constructed to house his own family and their families after him? Jesus had his own family, a three or four day walk away in the Galilee region.

[liamconnor]

Let's just start with the tomb at all. Was Jesus even buried in a tomb?

Archaeology and Josephus demonstrate that in Jerusalem Jews were buried in tombs.

Criminals and the indigent however would normally have been consigned to a common pit and covered with quick lime. This would have been the fate of the body of Jesus had not Joseph intervened.

Hand hewn stone tombs were the perks of the rich, for the obvious reason that they were very expensive. For the common people the answer typically was that they used mountain caves, or grottoes as the resting place for family members. These would be used as the resting place for entire generations of family members. Often these caves or grottoes would have the name of the family or families associated with them carved at the entrance.

1 Cor. 15:4 does not say "tomb" only "buried" which is vague. So just on that verse, we must be neutral.

The gospels all agree on "tomb". (Remember, these are just ancient documents. No one here is talking about inspiration or any thing else. And we aren't here discussing the resurrection. We are just asking about some dude named Jesus and his fate immediately following crucifixion).

So, we have archaeology and two sources.

What reasons do we have for questioning he was even buried in a tomb at all?

The Gospels indicate that the body of Jesus was taken to Joseph's new rock cut tomb to be washed and wrapped because the hour was late and the tomb was conveniently "nigh at hand" to the place where Jesus was executed. The washing and preparation of the body is described. But not any burial rites. Christians have assumed for centuries that Joseph's tomb was intended to be the burial site of Jesus. But why would Joseph inter a non family member in his personal and very expensive a new tomb that had recently been completed and which he had ordered constructed to house his own family and their families after him? Jesus had his own family, a three or four day walk away in the Galilee region.

DI: I need you to put on the brakes if we are going to continue. You like to give all your knowledge and all of your theory and the whole shabang at once. This is fine if you are writing a book. It is not conducive to a debate. Step by step.

For instance you write:

Criminals and the indigent however would normally have been consigned to a common pit and covered with quick lime. This would have been the fate of the body of Jesus had not Joseph intervened.

If you concede that Joseph intervened, then why add this point? Are you just showing off? If you are saying Joseph didn't intervene, then why go on...

Hand hewn stone tombs were the perks of the rich, for the obvious reason that they were very expensive. For the common people the answer typically was that they used mountain caves, or grottoes as the resting place for family members. These would be used as the resting place for entire generations of family members. Often these caves or grottoes would have the name of the family or families associated with them carved at the entrance.

I am not taking a tour with a guide through Jerusalem!

This is why I don't read your posts. 99% of it is not an argument. What does it matter that

"Often these caves or grottoes would have the name of the family or families associated with them carved at the entrance."

Why did you include that? Were you showing off? Hoping to intimidate me? As if I were going to say "Gosh, this guy knows a lot about grottoes and caves...I'd better steer clear..."?



You wanted to know why I skip your posts; that is why.

Now, as a positive, you write this

But why would Joseph inter a non family member in his personal and very expensive a new tomb that had recently been completed and which he had ordered constructed to house his own family and their families after him? Jesus had his own family, a three or four day walk away in the Galilee region.

That was good. Very GOOD! Please stick with stuff like that. You stick with stuff like that and I will read and reread it.

The answer is, "Joseph was an aristocrat. He had money. Purchasing a new family grave would have been nothing. And no better way to honor a respected one than bury him in the vicinity of the capital, Jerusalem."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to liamconnor]

The answer is, "Joseph was an aristocrat. He had money. Purchasing a new family grave would have been nothing. And no better way to honor a respected one than bury him in the vicinity of the capital, Jerusalem."

As I have already pointed out, these sorts of crypts were not intended to be single occupancy. Typically a ledge would be cut into the stone where the body would be laid out. After a couple of months the family would make a ceremony of collecting the bones and placing them into stone boxes called ossuaries. The ossuaries would then be placed into niches carved into the stone. This way whole generations of family members would be interred together.

[Danmark]

I explained above why I gave these quotes: it was not to intimidate into submission by pure "authority". I merely wished to show that a wide range of scholars did in fact agree on a few things. I did this so that we might dispense with some of the "ground work" (for instance, it would be terribly counter-productive to get into a debate about the empty tomb, and then meet someone chiming in about the very existence of Jesus; or angry about the morality of god during the flood. I do not feel obliged to dance at everyone's whim).

I think I did give a source for Ehrman. At this point, it matters not. I am willing (and always really wanted) to work purely from the ancient documents. So long as it is systematic. In the middle of a debate about Paul's experience on the way to Damascus, I don't want to read a reply that argues about the historicity of the flood; or why I am not a Mormon; or whether Jesus really existed.

Now, someone has chosen "the empty tomb" for debate which has very good parameters.

You have brought up Paul's experience on the way to Damascus--Can you form this topic into a title for discussion? After all, there are more fundamental questions that need to be addressed: for instance

1) how many hours did Paul actually fast--did "three days" for an ancient mean 72 hours? Every scholar I have read (many of them agnostics) states as matter of fact that Jews used an "inclusive" reckoning, and counted the "new day" as starting at sunset (hence we have Jesus crucified shortly before sunset, reported to have been raised at least by early Sunday, yet the period (three days) for us technically amounts to 72 hours.

Applied to Paul: if Paul got to Damascus an hour before sunset (which let's say is at 8 PM) on, say, our Tuesday, and began fasting (that is, fasting at 7 PM), that would be day one, even though it was just an hour (fasting from 7 PM to sunset at 8 PM). Day two would extend from 8 PM sunset on our Tuesday to 8 PM Sunset on our Weds. Thus we have 25 hours. If he began eating soon on the third day, say at 8:30 PM on Weds night, he will have fasted 25 hours and 30 minute. Three days for a Jew here = 25 hours and 30 minutes. I am not arguing that specific duration here. We would have to discuss it. But it is far from concluded that he fasted 72 hours: after all, they didn't have stop watches.

2) What effects does fasting even for 72 hours have on the mind? Do studies show that people are delusional after such time? What effects would fasting for 25 and 1/2 hours have?

3) Or should we discuss the historicity of the documents: after all, your knowledge of Paul's fasting comes from Acts; Acts itself reports a vision being given to a Ananias by Jesus immediately after this account. I am assuming you disregard that scene since it would greatly validate Paul's testimony (Ananias was not fasting). So now you and I have to talk about the historicity of certain documents; why we should accept one and not the other as historical.

You see how complicated this is getting?

It's not complicated at all if we remove absurdities like yours about 3 days meaning 25 hours and the fact you change other facts to fit what you want to believe.

The general rule is that death can occur after 3 days without water.

Severe dehydration, a medical emergency, can cause:

Extreme thirst
Extreme fussiness or sleepiness in infants and children; irritability and confusion in adults
Very dry mouth, skin and mucous membranes
Little or no urination — any urine that is produced will be darker than normal
Sunken eyes
Shriveled and dry skin that lacks elasticity and doesn't "bounce back" when pinched into a fold
In infants, sunken fontanels — the soft spots on the top of a baby's head
Low blood pressure
Rapid heartbeat
Rapid breathing
No tears when crying
Fever
In the most serious cases, delirium or unconsciousness
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20030056

In addition, we know that Paul started by falling down and being blinded at noon. Sun stroke and/or a seizure certainly did not help his dehydrated condition. Further, he TELLS US he had a DELUSION. He just didn't use that term because he thought, or claimed he actually saw Jesus. Now you've tried to make a case for the extreme possibilities erring on the side against or minimizing the facts. Let's just take the common case. When someone falls down in the middle of the day, can't see or eat or drink for 3 days, then wakes up and claims he saw something supernatural, WHICH IS MORE LIKELY? That he really did see God, or that he had a delusion?

[JehovahsWitness]

The answer is, "Joseph was an aristocrat. He had money. Purchasing a new family grave would have been nothing. And no better way to honor a respected one than bury him in the vicinity of the capital, Jerusalem."

True, also he would probably been aware of enemies that would have just loved for Jesus' body to be tossed like so much rubbish in Gehenna... with other thieves, murderers and unmentionables. That he had the means to at least deny those that were waiting to cast this final humiliation on Jesus and his followers would, I belive have been an honour for someone that valued Jesus message.

JW