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]

I consider one case closed. No one was willing to defend the theory that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was/is still occupied.

Something happened to the body.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to liamconnor]

The point you were attempting to make was that people were illiterate, so there is no reasonable expectation that stories of a corpse coming back to life and flying away, or hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, could be expected to have escaped to a wider audience. But the point of my post, which you seem to be ignoring entirely, is that Rome had a very efficient and well run postal system. People wrote letters and kept in touch. Those that could not read and write got those who could to write for them. But you are half right. Despite the well functioning postal system absolutely no word of a corpse coming back to life and flying away, or hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves, managed to reach a wider audience. No one seemed aware of these claims at all, in fact. About a quarter of a century after these events were supposed to have occurred, Paul seems to be the first to have considered the story worthy of mentioning.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by liamconnor]

that no document of ancient history every suggests that this Yeshua of Nazareth was a fiction. Not a single person investigate this person so that some one, somewhere, said "B.S. I've looked into it."

Why would anyone have investigated it? This isn't the same world as today, skepticism wasn't treated the same back then. Even the Gospels make mention of barely a few hundred followers of Jesus in the 30s-40s AD. It's a tiny group (initially). So why would anyone alive in the 30s-40s AD even bother investigating this group of people who say their hero rose from the dead?
You might notice that I spend all my time on this site discussing Christianity. You won't find me in the other religion section, discussing the resurrection claims of a tiny group out in the middle of nowhere that has only a couple hundred followers.

I also have to point out that this logic of yours is unsound. Just because no-one at the time investigated it and found it unworthy does NOT mean the claim stands by default. You still have to provide positive evidence in favour of it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by Danmark]

illiant 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 can speak to that. I remember going through a very bad case of flu or a similar illness about fifteen years ago. I eventually ended up on the sofa with my mother watching over me, because I was delirious.
During the night, I got it into my head to get up, open the front door and have a stroll around the neighbourhood, in naught but a shirt and underwear. During the walk, I believed that I was a bomb and that if I exploded I would blow up the planet.
Fortunately I was found and brought back inside, where I eventually woke up and realised what had happened.

If I'm to give credence to what Paul writes about his own experience, should I give credence to what I believed when I was sick? Should I actually believe now that I was somehow a planet-destroying bomb on that night fifteen years ago?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 45 by liamconnor]

On the one hand, it is unlikely any one would have willingly done this--Jews were proud of their laws. On the other, it is unlikely such a major breach would not have been noticed and leave a paper trail.

1) The Gospels have Jesus teaching his followers to disregard hardcore Sabbath rules. So a follower of Jesus more than likely would have thought little of breaking those rules by doing work and/or travelling. After all, he's the Son of God, God himself in human form.

2) I notice that you discount this breach of Sabbath rules by saying that it is unlikely to have been noticed and not to have left a paper trail.
What I see here is you doing a double standard. Where was the paper trail at the actual time of the crucifixion? It isn't until 20, 30, 40 years AFTER the event that we see the first documents mentioning it.
If the crucifixion of Jesus, the trial and execution itself didn't generate a paper trail until decades after the event, why would you expect for someone to have left a paper trail documenting someone walking or riding on a wagon on the Sabbath?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 52 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The Panthera tale, as questionable as it is, is vastly more likely to be true than the story that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and flew away.

Let's be gracious and assign the Panthera tale a 5% plausibility. In comparison to the Resurrection tale, it has.....

...still, 5% plausibility. If you wish to call this a vast difference, you may. I call it as it is: which is really a .05% plausibility. It's only virtue is that it is innocent of direct contradiction--saying that Mary was raped by aliens avoids direct contradiction.

If at the end of the day every naturalistic theory available is desperate, then those who hold to them are doing so desperately: grasping at straw. You can say the resurrection theory is even weaker straw; but that doesn't make you safe. You are still holding onto straw.

It's still a higher plausibility than the virgin-impregnated-by-God claim, because we have actual evidence that shows it is possible for human men and human women to copulate, both within and without wedlock, for a married woman to copulate with a man not her husband and for such unions to produce children.
Where is your data that shows that virgins can be impregnated by gods? Have you evidence that this happened outside of ancient stories? Do you have a woman on hand I can examine who has just recently given birth but who for example, is allergic to semen (it happens sometimes)?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 45 by liamconnor]

On the one hand, it is unlikely any one would have willingly done this--Jews were proud of their laws. On the other, it is unlikely such a major breach would not have been noticed and leave a paper trail.

1) The Gospels have Jesus teaching his followers to disregard hardcore Sabbath rules. So a follower of Jesus more than likely would have thought little of breaking those rules by doing work and/or travelling. After all, he's the Son of God, God himself in human form.

2) I notice that you discount this breach of Sabbath rules by saying that it is unlikely to have been noticed and not to have left a paper trail.
What I see here is you doing a double standard. Where was the paper trail at the actual time of the crucifixion? It isn't until 20, 30, 40 years AFTER the event that we see the first documents mentioning it.
If the crucifixion of Jesus, the trial and execution itself didn't generate a paper trail until decades after the event, why would you expect for someone to have left a paper trail documenting someone walking or riding on a wagon on the Sabbath?

1) The Gospels have Jesus teaching his followers to disregard hardcore Sabbath rules. So a follower of Jesus more than likely would have thought little of breaking those rules by doing work and/or travelling. After all, he's the Son of God, God himself in human form.

Nope. What "hardcore" Sabbath rules did Jesus break, and which were merely interpretations of what "work" constituted? You are taking Pharisaic interpretations as "hard core". They weren't. They were just the interpretation of a sect. The hardcore law was "do not work on the Sabbath". "Work" is rather vague. At any rate, Jesus never once said, "Work on the Sabbath". So no, you are wrong and you are out of your element.

2) I notice that you discount this breach of Sabbath rules by saying that it is unlikely to have been noticed and not to have left a paper trail.
What I see here is you doing a double standard. Where was the paper trail at the actual time of the crucifixion? It isn't until 20, 30, 40 years AFTER the event that we see the first documents mentioning it.
If the crucifixion of Jesus, the trial and execution itself didn't generate a paper trail until decades after the event, why would you expect for someone to have left a paper trail documenting someone walking or riding on a wagon on the Sabbath?

So the crucifixion DID leave a paper trail. 20, 30, 40 years after the event. The violation of Sabbath law DID NOT leave a paper trail, not 20, or 30, or 40, or 100 years after the event. We have the one (crucifixion) and not the other (corpse transportation on the Sabbath) on record.

What I see here is you not knowing Jewish law of the 1st century and not knowing what "a paper trail" means.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 66 by rikuoamero]

This thread is about what we can glean.

We can't glean the Roman theory.

It should be dropped.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 67 by liamconnor]

The hardcore law was "do not work on the Sabbath". "Work" is rather vague. At any rate, Jesus never once said, "Work on the Sabbath". So no, you are wrong and you are out of your element.

So why then are you arguing that Jesus's followers did not prepare the body on the Sabbath and/or travel, if the rules/laws governing such behaviour are so lax? Why are there Gospel stories that show Jesus doing work on the Sabbath and there being priests attempting to have him prosecuted for doing just that, and Jesus 'cleverly' avoiding the charges?

Basically, I have stories of priests attempting to prosecute Jesus for working on the Sabbath. Why would their behaviour change when in this case it was Jesus's followers?

I do have to agree though that Jesus never said "Work on the Sabbath". The gist of the stories though is that the rules/laws governing work on the Sabbath were supposedly no longer in effect or shown to have no basis in actuality, because here's the Son of God Himself saying so!
Thus, followers of Jesus wouldn't have thought much of breaking what they believe are now defunct laws.

So the crucifixion DID leave a paper trail. 20, 30, 40 years after the event. The violation of Sabbath law DID NOT leave a paper trail, not 20, or 30, or 40, or 100 years after the event. We have the one (crucifixion) and not the other (corpse transportation on the Sabbath) on record.

Why would there be a paper trail for a person or persons riding on a wagon or walking on the Sabbath? Do you expect for the Jews back then to have generated meticulous records of every violation of Sabbath law? Or rather, would they have just seized the offender and stoned them to death?
We see that behaviour today in the Middle East. A person gets accused of some violation of Sharia law and they're executed, and the people doing the executing rarely if ever generate paperwork. Rather, it's more typical that it's just a mob of people who get worked up into a frenzy.

What we have is one explanation for a supposed event that violates every single thing we know and understand about reality. It doesn't stand by itself, it doesn't mean that just because someone wrote down a body got up and walked around, and no-one else at the time wrote an opposing explanation, that it means there most definitely was a body that got up and walked around.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 8 by liamconnor]

that no document of ancient history every suggests that this Yeshua of Nazareth was a fiction. Not a single person investigate this person so that some one, somewhere, said "B.S. I've looked into it."

Why would anyone have investigated it? This isn't the same world as today, skepticism wasn't treated the same back then. Even the Gospels make mention of barely a few hundred followers of Jesus in the 30s-40s AD. It's a tiny group (initially). So why would anyone alive in the 30s-40s AD even bother investigating this group of people who say their hero rose from the dead?
You might notice that I spend all my time on this site discussing Christianity. You won't find me in the other religion section, discussing the resurrection claims of a tiny group out in the middle of nowhere that has only a couple hundred followers.

I also have to point out that this logic of yours is unsound. Just because no-one at the time investigated it and found it unworthy does NOT mean the claim stands by default. You still have to provide positive evidence in favour of it.

Why would anyone have investigated it? This isn't the same world as today, skepticism wasn't treated the same back then. Even the Gospels make mention of barely a few hundred followers of Jesus in the 30s-40s AD. It's a tiny group (initially). So why would anyone alive in the 30s-40s AD even bother investigating this group of people who say their hero rose from the dead?

Why would they abandon their former religion? Why isolate themselves from their social network? Why change their entire way of life? Why join a new religious movement, in a time when religious innovations were looked down upon.

You simply know very little about the 1st c. western religion. You should be reading, not writing.