The Resurrection

[Sleepy]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

[Goat]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

The 'empty tomb' is just a story. Nothing more. It does not fit in the tradition of the Romans throwing the bodies of criminals in the garbage dump , so they won't get a proper burial. All the information about others seeing Jesus after he is dead comes from Paul. He lied. James jumped in to fill the power gap left by his brothers death.

[AB]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

The 'empty tomb' is just a story. Nothing more. It does not fit in the tradition of the Romans throwing the bodies of criminals in the garbage dump , so they won't get a proper burial. All the information about others seeing Jesus after he is dead comes from Paul. He lied. James jumped in to fill the power gap left by his brothers death.

Huh? Sorry John and Mattew account their experiecne of seeing Jesus after HE died on the cross. And in regards to Paul's ministry.. you simply claim he lied?? Paul: A jew who grew up in Tarsus with roman citizenship, with a very high degree of education, who persecuted christians. And then turns to speak the gospel to the point where he is hunted, inslaved and beaten, but still travels with the message many many miles. And you simply say he "lied"? All that to support his lie?? Sorry, the situation doesn't support your desparate claim. It was comical though. Thank you.

[Goat]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

The 'empty tomb' is just a story. Nothing more. It does not fit in the tradition of the Romans throwing the bodies of criminals in the garbage dump , so they won't get a proper burial. All the information about others seeing Jesus after he is dead comes from Paul. He lied. James jumped in to fill the power gap left by his brothers death.

Huh? Sorry John and Mattew account their experiecne of seeing Jesus after HE died on the cross. And in regards to Paul's ministry.. you simply claim he lied?? Paul: A jew who grew up in Tarsus with roman citizenship, with a very high degree of education, who persecuted christians. And then turns to speak the gospel to the point where he is hunted, inslaved and beaten, but still travels with the message many many miles. And you simply say he "lied"? All that to support his lie?? Sorry, the situation doesn't support your desparate claim. It was comical though. Thank you.

John and Matthew wrote after 70 C.E, and neither of them are eye witnesses. They were just repeating stories they heard .. an oral tradition. That is as much of an evidence of an empty tomb as the BOM is of Morimoni giving golden tablets to Joesph Smith.

As for Paul, well, the sitation he describes, of hearing a voice that no one can, is definately the sign of an hallucination. The description in his letters of the experiance on the road to damascus sounds like either an hallucination or heat stroke to me. The theology that Paul pushes is very very unJewish. It is, however, very similar to what was commonly believed in Tarsus at that time period.

[AB]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

The 'empty tomb' is just a story. Nothing more. It does not fit in the tradition of the Romans throwing the bodies of criminals in the garbage dump , so they won't get a proper burial. All the information about others seeing Jesus after he is dead comes from Paul. He lied. James jumped in to fill the power gap left by his brothers death.

Huh? Sorry John and Mattew account their experiecne of seeing Jesus after HE died on the cross. And in regards to Paul's ministry.. you simply claim he lied?? Paul: A jew who grew up in Tarsus with roman citizenship, with a very high degree of education, who persecuted christians. And then turns to speak the gospel to the point where he is hunted, inslaved and beaten, but still travels with the message many many miles. And you simply say he "lied"? All that to support his lie?? Sorry, the situation doesn't support your desparate claim. It was comical though. Thank you.

John and Matthew wrote after 70 C.E, and neither of them are eye witnesses. They were just repeating stories they heard .. an oral tradition. That is as much of an evidence of an empty tomb as the BOM is of Morimoni giving golden tablets to Joesph Smith.

As for Paul, well, the sitation he describes, of hearing a voice that no one can, is definately the sign of an hallucination. The description in his letters of the experiance on the road to damascus sounds like either an hallucination or heat stroke to me. The theology that Paul pushes is very very unJewish. It is, however, very similar to what was commonly believed in Tarsus at that time period.

So, lets get what your are proposing... Paul had a heat stroke. And that one time event propelled him to travel so many miles, for so many years, endure some much beatings, endure so much inprisonment... Sorry man, your propostion just doesn't add up. Actually, it is quite ridiculous given the facts of the situation. Sorry.

John and Matthew were eyewitness to Jesus's miracles of healing. So, is this legit. Or, did they just "lie"?

By the way, Jesus spent time with them after the resurrection. Not sure where you are coming from in-regards to no eyewitness.

[Goat]

So, lets get what your are proposing... Paul had a heat stroke. And that one time event propelled him to travel so many miles, for so many years, endure some much beatings, endure so much inprisonment... Sorry man, your propostion just doesn't add up. Actually, it is quite ridiculous given the facts of the situation. Sorry.

John and Matthew were eyewitness to Jesus's miracles of healing. So, is this legit. Or, did they just "lie"?

By the way, Jesus spent time with them after the resurrection. Not sure where you are coming from in-regards to no eyewitness.

It makes as much sense as anything else. Hallucinations can be powerful things.

I have not seen any real evidence that the resurrection happened. I have seen how a hallucination can strongly effect someones behavior.

You are claiming that John and Matthew were eyewitnesses. However, the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars will admit that the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew are pseudographical works written decades after the fact. They will admit that no one really knows who wrote those Gospels. Yes, there is a minority of very conservatives who think they are written by the person whose name the gospel bears, but there is no real evidence they were, and a lot of evidence they were not. Stories told decades later are often exaggerated. I am sure they were relating an oral legend, or copied another , earlier gospel. However, that doesn't make their claims any more true.

[adlemi]

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

In the first place, Jesus is the Almighty Lord God of all ages and Jesus did not die at any point in time but just lived/inhabited/dwelt inside the physical body (manifestation in the flesh) born of Mary. The one who suffered physical death in the cross was the said physical body to which the Lord Jesus came inside and it did not rise up and live alive again from there onward. The Lord Jesus made it appear to the eyes of the people then, including the disciples, that the said body resurrected (as Thomas saw and felt it) but in reality, the Lord Jesus Christ hid the said body in the ark of Noah togerher with the body of Moses. Said ark is now buried and hidden somewhere in the middle east. Jesus is always alive and need not resurrect himself because He is the Almighty Lord God of all, no exeptions.

[achilles12604]

So, lets get what your are proposing... Paul had a heat stroke. And that one time event propelled him to travel so many miles, for so many years, endure some much beatings, endure so much inprisonment... Sorry man, your propostion just doesn't add up. Actually, it is quite ridiculous given the facts of the situation. Sorry.

John and Matthew were eyewitness to Jesus's miracles of healing. So, is this legit. Or, did they just "lie"?

By the way, Jesus spent time with them after the resurrection. Not sure where you are coming from in-regards to no eyewitness.

It makes as much sense as anything else. Hallucinations can be powerful things.

I have not seen any real evidence that the resurrection happened. I have seen how a hallucination can strongly effect someones behavior.

You are claiming that John and Matthew were eyewitnesses. However, the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars will admit that the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew are pseudographical works written decades after the fact. They will admit that no one really knows who wrote those Gospels. Yes, there is a minority of very conservatives who think they are written by the person whose name the gospel bears, but there is no real evidence they were, and a lot of evidence they were not. Stories told decades later are often exaggerated. I am sure they were relating an oral legend, or copied another , earlier gospel. However, that doesn't make their claims any more true.

I would be curious Goat as to your imput on the discussion Lotan and I are having about the very first Christian converts.

To sum up. . .

I purpose the theory that the very first Christian's CONVERSIONS (key word and noun of my sentence here), give support for the validity of the Christian beliefs and especially the resurrection.

Background only : When Jesus died even his own followers acknowledged that the dream was over. We can be fairly sure of this by both their writings and the description of the beginning of the Christian faith by Roman historians account of the pattern of the rise of the Christian faith. They thought he was dead and gone for good. Then these same men began to preach that Jesus rose from the dead. We are sure of this because of the creation of the christian church, their writings, the writings of thse around them (Paul, James, etc), and the writings of the Jews alive during the time who commented on the Christians. We are sure of what Peter, James, Paul, and the other apostles (11 of them) were preaching,


With this being said lets follow the logic of both Christianity being true and Christianity being false.

False first -

1) The apostles must have been lying. The other common reason given include misinterpretation of what they were saying. There is no room for misinterpretation of what they were preaching because we know what they were preaching from the writings of Paul, the writing of the Gospel of Mark (and others to a lesser degree for the sever skeptic) and the writings of Roman historians investigating the events, the Jews investigating the events, and the few writings we have of Josephus on the matter.

2) Since the Apostles were lying, we can safely conclude that either they were making the whole thing up or they were exaggerating what they saw to a huge degree.

If they were making the whole thing up then you must conclude what I talk about in the thread "conspiracy theory". Suffice to say, even the atheists on this forum will not admit to believing this when questioned although some of them used it.

Therefore, we are left with the apostles exaggerating what happened. This is where the original converts come in. The apostles were claiming Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead attoning for all man's sins. This is a HUGE claim and more importantly it contradicted what was known or expected by the Jews. The Jews believed in one mass resurrection at the end of time. Individual resurrections were not possible. Also miracles were attributed to God and his prophets. These were matters that were not taken lightly. Therefore, if the apostles were exaggerating, then it would have been impossible for Christianity to gain any followers from a group of men and women who were alive and saw Jesus and his ministry. They simply would have known that the stories were not true. More than that, their stories were blasphemous and should have offended any Jew that heard them.

This is especially true for the ressurection. A missing body and claims of God raising men from the dead, especially to cleanse our sins, would have required a ton of proof to be believed by anyone. As Atheist David Hume pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If Jesus had been dead, or if his body had simply been thrown into the fire pit, then the people being preached to would have been well aware of this fact and would have pointed out the apostles for the liars they were.

3) This however is not what happened. The early church exploded in Jerusalem to be big enough in just a very few years to send missionaries to other cities and even other countries. The early converts were in the unique position to know the facts. This can not be said of any other religion on earth that I am aware of. Knowledge claims much more than belief ever will.




Now if we assume that Christianity is true, then all these facts fit nicely. The writings of the Jew Josephus and the later writings in the Talmud are explained. The Gospels stories fit into place. And most importantly for this thread, the missing body is accounted for. It would be a problem especially for the very first believers if Jesus didn't die, if his body was still dead, or if he was in fact thrown into the fire. These theories are needed by the atheist crowd to continue their arguement of disbelief, however then are much harder to fit into a logical analysis of history than the Christian explaination. And all you have to do to accept this as a possibility is allow for the most remote possibility of God's existence. Of course the atheists can not do that.

[Goat]

So, lets get what your are proposing... Paul had a heat stroke. And that one time event propelled him to travel so many miles, for so many years, endure some much beatings, endure so much inprisonment... Sorry man, your propostion just doesn't add up. Actually, it is quite ridiculous given the facts of the situation. Sorry.

John and Matthew were eyewitness to Jesus's miracles of healing. So, is this legit. Or, did they just "lie"?

By the way, Jesus spent time with them after the resurrection. Not sure where you are coming from in-regards to no eyewitness.

It makes as much sense as anything else. Hallucinations can be powerful things.

I have not seen any real evidence that the resurrection happened. I have seen how a hallucination can strongly effect someones behavior.

You are claiming that John and Matthew were eyewitnesses. However, the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars will admit that the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew are pseudographical works written decades after the fact. They will admit that no one really knows who wrote those Gospels. Yes, there is a minority of very conservatives who think they are written by the person whose name the gospel bears, but there is no real evidence they were, and a lot of evidence they were not. Stories told decades later are often exaggerated. I am sure they were relating an oral legend, or copied another , earlier gospel. However, that doesn't make their claims any more true.

I would be curious Goat as to your imput on the discussion Lotan and I are having about the very first Christian converts.

To sum up. . .

I purpose the theory that the very first Christian's CONVERSIONS (key word and noun of my sentence here), give support for the validity of the Christian beliefs and especially the resurrection.

Background only : When Jesus died even his own followers acknowledged that the dream was over. We can be fairly sure of this by both their writings and the description of the beginning of the Christian faith by Roman historians account of the pattern of the rise of the Christian faith. They thought he was dead and gone for good. Then these same men began to preach that Jesus rose from the dead. We are sure of this because of the creation of the christian church, their writings, the writings of thse around them (Paul, James, etc), and the writings of the Jews alive during the time who commented on the Christians. We are sure of what Peter, James, Paul, and the other apostles (11 of them) were preaching,


With this being said lets follow the logic of both Christianity being true and Christianity being false.

False first -

1) The apostles must have been lying. The other common reason given include misinterpretation of what they were saying. There is no room for misinterpretation of what they were preaching because we know what they were preaching from the writings of Paul, the writing of the Gospel of Mark (and others to a lesser degree for the sever skeptic) and the writings of Roman historians investigating the events, the Jews investigating the events, and the few writings we have of Josephus on the matter.

2) Since the Apostles were lying, we can safely conclude that either they were making the whole thing up or they were exaggerating what they saw to a huge degree.

If they were making the whole thing up then you must conclude what I talk about in the thread "conspiracy theory". Suffice to say, even the atheists on this forum will not admit to believing this when questioned although some of them used it.

Therefore, we are left with the apostles exaggerating what happened. This is where the original converts come in. The apostles were claiming Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead attoning for all man's sins. This is a HUGE claim and more importantly it contradicted what was known or expected by the Jews. The Jews believed in one mass resurrection at the end of time. Individual resurrections were not possible. Also miracles were attributed to God and his prophets. These were matters that were not taken lightly. Therefore, if the apostles were exaggerating, then it would have been impossible for Christianity to gain any followers from a group of men and women who were alive and saw Jesus and his ministry. They simply would have known that the stories were not true. More than that, their stories were blasphemous and should have offended any Jew that heard them.

This is especially true for the ressurection. A missing body and claims of God raising men from the dead, especially to cleanse our sins, would have required a ton of proof to be believed by anyone. As Atheist David Hume pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If Jesus had been dead, or if his body had simply been thrown into the fire pit, then the people being preached to would have been well aware of this fact and would have pointed out the apostles for the liars they were.

3) This however is not what happened. The early church exploded in Jerusalem to be big enough in just a very few years to send missionaries to other cities and even other countries. The early converts were in the unique position to know the facts. This can not be said of any other religion on earth that I am aware of. Knowledge claims much more than belief ever will.




Now if we assume that Christianity is true, then all these facts fit nicely. The writings of the Jew Josephus and the later writings in the Talmud are explained. The Gospels stories fit into place. And most importantly for this thread, the missing body is accounted for. It would be a problem especially for the very first believers if Jesus didn't die, if his body was still dead, or if he was in fact thrown into the fire. These theories are needed by the atheist crowd to continue their arguement of disbelief, however then are much harder to fit into a logical analysis of history than the Christian explaination. And all you have to do to accept this as a possibility is allow for the most remote possibility of God's existence. Of course the atheists can not do that.

You are using the logical fallacy of the false dicomtomy. There are other possiblities. If you read the earlier Gospels, such as the letters from Paul, you see that Paul ws not really concerned about the earthly Jesus, and except for the comment that he was of the House of David,
we have no details about earthly Jesus. This will go along with the concept Jesus rose "spiritually", according to the early Christians.

The indications of there was a change in belief is that the later books written became more sophisicoated, and developed about Jesus. The concept of a spiritual resurrection would not be out of line with some of the Jewish movements at that time. However, as the theology developed, it became more and more out of line with Jewish beliefs of the time, and eventually, Christians were no longer welcome in Jewish congregations. This happened apparently before the writing of Mark (end of the Jewish revolt). You begin to see the rift in the writings, and a seperation by refering of the Jewish faith as 'The Jews'.

If you look at the progression of the writings, you have a vague, spriitual Jesus in the writings of Paul, then the stories became more elaborate and mystical , culiminating with the phsycial resurrection in the later books , written after the Jewish revolt, and after there being a theological seperation from the rest of the Jewish community.. a bitter one at that.

[Easyrider]

If you read the earlier Gospels, such as the letters from Paul, you see that Paul ws not really concerned about the earthly Jesus, and except for the comment that he was of the House of David,
we have no details about earthly Jesus.

Go review Paul's writings on the Lord's Supper if he never referenced anything other than Jesus being of the House of David.

The indications of there was a change in belief is that the later books written became more sophisicoated, and developed about Jesus. The concept of a spiritual resurrection would not be out of line with some of the Jewish movements at that time. However, as the theology developed, it became more and more out of line with Jewish beliefs of the time, and eventually, Christians were no longer welcome in Jewish congregations. This happened apparently before the writing of Mark (end of the Jewish revolt). You begin to see the rift in the writings, and a seperation by refering of the Jewish faith as 'The Jews'.

This "developed theology" of yours sounds like a theory, Goat, which you haven't adequately established. Just because some think Paul wrote first, doesn't mean that people such as Matthew, Peter, and John - though they might have written later - developed anything. It's a poor argument, especially so since you have no credible evidence to support it.

If you look at the progression of the writings, you have a vague, spriitual Jesus in the writings of Paul, then the stories became more elaborate and mystical , culiminating with the phsycial resurrection in the later books , written after the Jewish revolt, and after there being a theological seperation from the rest of the Jewish community.. a bitter one at that.

If Paul did not teach about the physical resurrection of Jesus, why did he list all those eyewitnesses? Sort of busts your theory wide open.