[
Replying to Difflugia in post #57]
I experience cognitive dissonance all the time at this site.
It is not that you simply experience it, you demonstrate it as we will see.
I can agree for the sake of argument that the earliest followers had non-corporeal visions of a post-crucifixion Jesus,
Two things here. First, it is not simply "for the sake of the argument" but rather that it is a fact that you cannot deny that the followers of Jesus just days later were reporting a resurrection, and we can know they did not make the story up. So again, you are not agreeing to this simply "for the sake of the argument" but rather because you know beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not possible the story was made up.
Next, we can know these early followers had some sort of encounter with the risen Jesus. What we cannot know is exactly what sort of encounter it was. You are agreeing (because you have to) that the story of the resurrection was not made up, and going on to insist what sort of experience it was, when we cannot know this.
while also saying that Mark made up the story of a physical resurrection to allegorize his spiritual, imagined experience of Jesus.
There is so much to say here that I am not sure I can get it all in. Even if Mark did such a thing, (which we cannot know) this would not take away from the fact that Mark, along with all the others had some sort of encounter with the risen Jesus. Moreover, we are still left with the fact that the story of the resurrection was not made up. In other words, we can know that after Jesus was crucified, all these folks did not get together and attempt to come up with some sort of plan and devise this grand scheme to start to spread the story that Jesus had risen. Rather, we can know that all of these folks (Mark included) did not make the encounter up. We can know that Mark, and all the others had what they were convinced to be an encounter with the risen Jesus. We can insist on this being the case. What we cannot insist upon, is what sort of encounter it was.
Next, are you really sure you want to make the argument that Mark really did have some sort of encounter with Jesus after the resurrection and then went on to make a story up that it was a physical encounter? I would think that they all believed it to be a physical encounter which is why they were all proclaiming a resurrection. In other words, we can know they all had some sort of encounter, and I do not see where any of them believed it to simply be a "spiritual" or "imagined" encounter, and if they all truly believed it to be a physical encounter and it was some other sort of encounter, this would not mean the story was made up, but rather they were all (including Mark) badly mistaken. I mean, are you suggesting that all the rest were somehow convinced they had encountered the real physical Jesus, but Mark somehow knew that what he experienced was not the physical Jesus, and he made that part up? Please make this make sense.
But the main thing here is the fact that you are saying that Mark is the one who made the story up concerning the physical resurrection. Are you saying that Mark is the actual author of the Gospel attributed to him, and are you going on to say that this author did have some sort of experience, and that he knew what sort of experience it was and made up a story that he knew was not true? In other words, are you saying Mark was the author of Mark, and Mark did have an encounter with Jesus after the crucifixion, and Mark knew it was either a spiritual, or imagined encounter, and he made the story up that it was a physical encounter?
I am still off track here, because the point I am attempting to get to is, most critics want to insist that we have no idea who the authors of the Gospels are, and we do not know when they were authored, but you seem to be insisting that Mark was the actual author of the Gospel attributed to him, which would put Mark right there on the scene, being alive at the time of the events, which is what most critics want to avoid. Because you see, I have no problem admitting (and not simply for the sake of the argument) that we cannot insist on who the authors of the Gospels may have been, but you seem to be insistent that Mark was indeed the author of the Gospel attributed to him, and you go on to acknowledge that this same Mark indeed had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and you seem to be saying that this Mark knew that this experience was not a real physical encounter, but rather knew it to be spiritual, or imagined, and he went on to make up the story that it was a physical encounter. There is a lot I would like explained here, but the question I have at the moment is, are you claiming that we have an author of a Gospel who was right there on the scene, and was alive at the time of the crucifixion? If not, then how can we know Mark did in fact have a spiritual, and or imagined encounter, and made up the story that it was physical, since the author of Mark does not identify himself?
This fits the "evidence and data" better than a physical resurrection
What does? The fact that we can know that all these folks could not have made the story up, and you are actually adding to the fact that Mark did indeed have an encounter, and somehow knew that it was spiritual, and or imagined, and he made the story up that it was physical? GOOD GRIEF!
Man! Allow me to help you make a better argument. We do not know who the author of Mark would be, nor how many decades later this Gospel would have been authored, and this means the author may have been writing down what had been passed on to him throughout the decades. Of course, this argument is not much better, but it at least does not put the author right there on the scene being alive at the crucifixion and acknowledging the fact that this author actually had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after the crucifixion, whether physical, imagined, or spiritual.
Your problem is the fact that we all know that any explanation of these things we can know would be more likely than a resurrection. Here again, I am admitting (and not simply for the sake of the argument) that almost any other explanation of these things we can know would be more likely than a resurrection. However, we all know that the most likely scenario is not always the correct answer. As an example, we can all agree that the story being made up would be far more likely than a resurrection. However, we also know that it is not possible that the story was made up. So then, even though we all agree that the story of the resurrection being made up is far more likely than a resurrection, once we come to understand that it is impossible for the story of the resurrection to have been made up, then we come to understand that it does not matter how much more likely such a scenario would be as opposed to a resurrection, because once we have determined such a scenario to be impossible, it would be impossible on the same level as a resurrection.
My friend, this is exactly why in the article "bluegreenearth" supplied, authored by Paul Ens, where Ens quotes Bart Ehrman as saying, "any other scenario"no matter how unlikely"is more likely than the one in which a great miracle occurred". Again, we all know this to be the case, so why does Ehrman feel the need to say such a thing? It is because he absolutely understands that any, and every scenario which has been put forth down through the years this debate has been raging, would be extremely unlikely, to the point these explanations would collapse under the weight of the evidence. In other words, Ehrman is well aware of the fact that any, and every alternative explanation of the facts we can be certain about which have been put forth down through the years, has a very low likelihood of being true. Therefore, he is forced to state the obvious which is that all of these extremely unlikely scenarios, would be more likely than the resurrection. It is like saying, we know for a fact that none of these scenarios could possibly be true, but even though we know this to be the case, they are more likely than a resurrection.
It is like we are getting very close to the impossible occurring, right? In other words, we all know a resurrection is impossible. We also know that the story being made up would be impossible. We can also know that any other scenario which has been put forth would be extremely unlikely to the point such a scenario would necessarily collapse under the weight of the facts and evidence we have. In other words, I admit to believing the impossible occurred, and I have no problem with those who come to a different conclusion, while there are others who are willing to believe anything at all, no matter how unlikely it would be, or they are holding out hope, against all hope (in other words faith) that there must and has to be some sort of natural explanation which would be likely, which has not been thought of as of yet.
because it doesn't require anything as grossly improbable as a dead man coming back to life.
Yeah, I agree, and this is the same argument Ehrman is making, and I have answered it above.
This doesn't conflict with what I wrote.
You are not going to wiggle out of this. You are admitting here that Mark truly had some sort of experience of Jesus after the crucifixion which was not made up. The only way Mark could have made the story up that it was a physical resurrection, is if he somehow knew that it was not. This makes no sense. I mean the same thing can be said about all the others as well. Either way the fact remains, that you must agree with Fredrikson who said, "as a historian I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. Thats what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that thats what they saw". This means, none of these folks (including Mark) made the story of the resurrection encounter up. Even if Mark did something to embellish the story after the fact does not negate the fact that Mark, along with all the others had some sort of encounter with what they were convinced to be the risen Jesus. You are demonstrating cognitive dissonance.
Mark saw the raised Jesus "on his own terms,"
This is all that needs to be said, which means you are forced to agree that this was not made up.
which was in his head
I have no problem with this being your opinion, but I can assure you this has not been determined.
He was convicted of its reality
Which again goes on to demonstrate the story was not made up.
and made up a story to explain to others how that reality felt to him personally
This would be far different than the actual story of the encounter which you are insisting Mark had, being made up. In reality when we acknowledge the fact that the story of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up, (which you agree did not happen) we are not talking about any of what you are referring to anyway. Rather, what we are acknowledging is the fact that we all understand that it is impossible to believe these earlier followers including Mark, watch Jesus die on the cross, and then somehow got together and made up the story of the resurrection and went around spreading what they knew to be a lie. This is what we are talking about, and this makes what you are saying irrelevant to the discussion. This means, you, I, the scholars, and everyone else knows the facts and evidence will not allow us to come to the conclusion that these early followers were reporting what they knew to be false. Rather, they were reporting what they were convinced they had witnessed.
So now, we are back to you must agree to the above, or you are demonstrating cognitive dissonance, because what you are saying about Mark has nothing whatsoever to do with these folks reporting what they knew to be false.
I just did. Neither visions nor made-up stories to explain them are extraordinary.
My friend, you are forced to admit that these folks were reporting what they were convinced was the truth. From here, these folks go on to continue to report this event and we know for a fact that these folks experience persecution for what they were reporting as the life of Paul demonstrates. These reports, by these simple folks goes on to have the most extraordinary impact in the history of the world. In other words, there is no other event in history which even comes close to having the impact as these reports from these simple people.
Whether it was visions, made up stories, or a resurrection, we are dealing with a most extraordinary tale, which has had the most extraordinary impact in history. In the end, no matter the explanation, we are left with the extraordinary, and for one to not understand this they are dealing with a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
