According to the apostle Paul, without Christ crucified our faith is worthless (1 Corinthians 15:14). Of central import then is not only the historicity of Jesus, but also his divinity as demonstrated through his resurrection.
John Dickson[1] points out that Thallos (in the third volume of his Histories 55CE) mentions a darkness which coincides with the crucifixion of Jesus. Unfortunately Thallos' work is lost - we know of his views only because Sextus Julius Africanus (160-240 CE) quotes it in his History of the World.
Assuming that the report of Thallos is faithfully reproduced there is an independent corroboration of the story that appears in Mark. ‘At the sixth hour (during Jesus’ crucifixion) darkness came over the whole land (Mark 15:33).’
Rome’s greatest historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 CE) in Annals 15.44 mentions, ‘Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who, during the reign of the emperor Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstitions, thus checked for a moment, broke out afresh not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the city of Rome, were all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular.’
Pliny the Younger (61-113 CE) who was stationed in Bithynia in 110 CE wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking advice if he should continue executing Christians, ‘The sum total of their guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as to a god. They also took an oath, not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery, and not to break any promise.’
Lucain was a Greek lecturer (115-200 CE) who wrote, ‘The one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he bought this new form of initiation into the world…Moreover, the first lawgiver of theirs persuaded them that they are all brothers the moment they transgress and deny the Greek gods and begin worshipping that crucified sophist and living by his laws.’
‘At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was perhaps the messiah Christ. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For they reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and he was alive. And up to this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.’
In the Talmud we also find the following, ‘On the eve of the Passover Jesus was hanged (on a cross). For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who can say anything in his favour let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was bought forward in his favour, he was hanged on the eve of Passover.’
Apart from direct texts there are also archaeological finds such as a plaque uncovered in the seaside ruins of Caesarea in 1961. Its inscription reads ‘Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honour of Tiberius.’ Emperor Tiberius reigned from 14-37 CE fitting both the gospel account and the Jewish records of Josephus who records Pilate as procurator of Israel from 26-36 CE.
These texts are too cursory to recreate more than an outline of Jesus, but nonetheless they do establish the name of Jesus, time and place of his ministry (Palestine during 26-36 CE), the name of his mother, name of a brother, his fame as a teacher and miracle worker / sorcerer, the title Messiah Christ, kingly status, time and manner of his death, involvement of Roman and Jewish leaders in his prosecution, an eclipse at the time of his death, rumours of an appearance to his followers after his death, and the movement that followed in his name.
Most details of Jesus come from the New Testament - but even though the documents are Christian that does not reduce their historic significance. It only requires that an analysis take into account their particular bias.
Historians take the Christian bias into account when studying New Testament documents in exactly the same way they take imperial bias into account when studying Tacitus or the Jewish bias into account when studying Josephus. The New Testament does not get placed into a special category nor its claims precluded from historical analysis. The New Testament comprises a series of independent documents that were circulated independently, and were not collected into the ‘New Testament’ until late in the fourth century. For example James the brother of Jesus did not know about the gospels because he was martyred before they were written. His epistle then is an early and independent source.
The fact that Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, James and John wrote similar accounts is historically significant because it suggests the source information (Q, Paul, oral tradition) was both early and widely known. This is the principle of multiple attestation. This principle, in the case of similar accounts coming from differing sources gives historians confidence that the accounts recall real events.
The next criterion is the criterion of coherence. When an event occurred in the Gospels that fits well with what we confidently know it is deemed more plausible. In Mark 11:15-17, for example, Jesus overturned tables and drove people out of the temple. How do we know this happened? Historians are confidant the Jerusalem elite, along with the Romans were responsible for Jesus’ death. This event coheres with Jesus’ final fate and therefore takes on increased plausibility[2].
The next criterion is the criterion of embarrassment. The logic being embarrassing events are not usually recorded unless they are true. For example women first witnessed the resurrected Jesus. In the first century women’s testimony had little value, so if the stories were in-factual why record that the first witnesses were women? Equally the story of Jesus asking God to spare him and the forsaken Jesus crying out on the cross were deeply offensive. Why record the story of Peter denying Christ in Mark 14:71 when it shows the leader of the church to be a coward? Are we to accept that the apostles, in their own fabricated account, would include such detail?
The last criterion is the criterion of date. The closer the account was to the date of the event the more plausible. The writings of Paul in particular were written within the lifetime of witnesses while according to archaeologist William Albright[3] ‘we can say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book after 80 CE two full generations before the date of 130-150 CE given by more radical New Testament critics’.
Luke Johnson[4] concludes, ‘Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was crucified under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.’
Habermas[5] then presses the case from historic figure to son of God by applying his minimal facts approach which focuses on four pieces of evidence that are accepted by mainstream scholarship as historical bedrock and one that is widely but not universally accepted.
The first fact past doubting is that Jesus was crucified to death. Sceptic James Tabor[6] concedes; ‘I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead’. Why do the vast majority of academic sceptics accept Jesus’ crucifixion and death as an indisputable fact? The main reason is that apart from the testimony of the four gospels there are also non-Christian sources such as Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion and the Talmud which also confirm Jesus was crucified to death.
The second fact past doubting is that Jesus’ disciples believed that Jesus rose and appeared to them. The evidence for this includes Paul’s testimony about the disciples, oral traditions that were passed through the church and the written works of the early church fathers. Paul knew at least some of the disciples personally so his declarations were based on their first hand eye-witness accounts. Scholars have also identified that creeds such as found in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and the early sermons recorded in Acts were transmitted by oral tradition before being later collected into the New Testament.
Since the oral tradition existed before Paul's letters it represents a very early source, possibly no more than a decade after the crucifixion. There are also the writings of the church fathers who knew the apostles. Irenaeus[7] for example reports that both Clement and Polycarp had conversed with the apostles. Clement[8] in his first century letter to the Corinthian church writes, ‘therefore having received …..complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our LORD’. Around 110 CE Polycarp also wrote a letter to the Philippians church in which he mentions the resurrection. After analysing the data liberal scholar Fredriksen[9] concludes; ‘the disciples’ conviction that they had seen the risen Christ….is part of historical bedrock, facts known past doubting’.
The third fact past doubting is the conversion of Paul. We know from multiple sources that Saul of Tarsus persecuted Christians. Additional accounts from Luke-Acts, Clement, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius and Origen all testify that Paul, once converted was willing to be persecuted for his new found belief. His transformation from persecutor to missionary, which Paul himself attributes to the risen Jesus must be addressed.
The fourth fact past doubting is the conversion of James. Both Mark and John report that none of Jesus’ brothers believed he was the Messiah. This story gains considerable plausibility because of the criteria of embarrassment. In the Jewish tradition unbelieving family members weaken a Rabbi’s standing so it is unlikely the early Christian authors would mention James’ scepticism unless it was true. Rather, the early account of Corinthians tells us the resurrected Jesus appeared to his sceptical brother and after this encounter we know that James went on to become the leader of the Jerusalem church before being martyred.
The fifth fact accepted by some but disputed by others is that the tomb was empty. There are essentially three strands of evidence; the Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation and the testimony of women. Jesus was executed and buried in Jerusalem yet only weeks later Peter declared God had raised him from the dead.
It would be impossible for the faith to establish itself in Jerusalem if Jesus lay in the tomb. Rather, what is recorded in Matthew and Tertullian is that the enemies of the apostles claimed the disciples themselves had stolen the body. But this accusation only confirms the tomb was empty. The third strand that adds credibility to the empty tomb thesis is the criteria of embarrassment. If the account of the discovery of the empty tomb was fabricated then it is unlikely that women would be given the credit for the discovery. While not conclusive it is at least plausible that the tomb was empty.
In terms of resurrection only one of the following scenarios could have occurred;
1. Jesus did not die Swoon theory
2. Jesus died, Jesus did not rise Conspiracy, hallucination, myth
3. Jesus died, Jesus rose Jesus is who he claims to be
Jesus did not die - the Swoon Theory
According to the gospels, the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus as he was already dead. Breaking the legs hastened death so that the bodies could be removed before the Sabbath (John 19:31-33). John, an eyewitness, also testifies that blood and water spilled from Jesus' pierced side (John 19:34-35) most likely indicating that Jesus died from asphyxiation.
The crucifixion was witnessed by Romans, Jewish Sanhedrin, family and friends and rates a mention in Roman, Jewish and Greek texts. Much of the crowd dispersed by the time Jesus died but the gospels do record that both soldiers and disciples remained as eye-witnesses. As fact one attests the eye-witnesses were convinced Jesus was crucified to death.
It has been argued that perhaps Jesus simply passed out and believing he was dead they buried him. Three days later after regaining consciousness Jesus was able to crawl out of the tomb. There are several lines of evidence that strongly dispute this scenario.
The first is that Pilot insisted the centurion who was an experienced soldier confirm personally that Jesus was dead before Pilot released Jesus’ body for burial. Second, Roman soldiers under Roman law were punished by death if a crucified prisoner escaped. There is no evidence to suggest the Roman military believed the crucifixion was bungled when the disciples, only weeks later claimed Jesus was alive.
The best that could be said of this thesis is that it is mischievous for it intentionally contradicts the weight of archaeological and documentary evidence that fortifies the finality of Roman crucifixion.
Jesus died but His resurrection was a conspiracy
Most of the apostles died in torturous ways. Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Jude and Simon were crucified, Thomas was speared to death, Matthew was axed to death, James was stoned to death and Matthias was burnt to death. If the apostles and the early supporters knew it was a conspiracy, why were they all willing to die in such agonizing ways for a lie they themselves fabricated?
Former Nixon administrator Chuck Colson[10] drew comparison to his own Watergate experience; ‘I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus rose from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Everyone was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.’
Another problem for the conspiracy theory is the Jerusalem factor. William Lane Craig[11] points out, ‘The Gospels were written in such a temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events....The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection (and been believed) under such circumstances had it not occurred.’
J. N. D. Anderson[12] adds; ‘Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence—and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication. … That simply wouldn’t make sense’. As fact two above attests, the disciples were convinced beyond doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, and so could not have been responsible for the fabrication of that story.
Jesus died but His resurrection was a hallucination
The problem with this theory is that there are too many witnesses. Jesus appears to the disciples, James, and according to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to over 500 people. The first letter to the Corinthians was one of Paul’s earliest written within 30 years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Its claims if untrue would have been disputed rather than embraced by eye-witnesses.
Since there is indisputable evidence that Paul’s writings were embraced by the early church it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus did in-fact appear to the 500. The only other alternative is that all 500 were hallucinating but Thomas J Thorburn[13] dismisses that possibility, ‘It is absolutely inconceivable that … five hundred persons, of average soundness of mind … should experience all kinds of sensuous impressions—visual, auditory, tactual—and that all these … experiences should rest entirely upon … hallucination’.
According to the gospels, the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus as he was already dead. Breaking the legs hastened death so that the bodies could be removed before the Sabbath (John 19:31-33). John, an eyewitness, also testifies that blood and water spilled from Jesus' pierced side (John 19:34-35) most likely indicating that Jesus died from asphyxiation.
The crucifixion was witnessed by Romans, Jewish Sanhedrin, family and friends and rates a mention in Roman, Jewish and Greek texts. Much of the crowd dispersed by the time Jesus died but the gospels do record that both soldiers and disciples remained as eye-witnesses. As fact one attests the eye-witnesses were convinced Jesus was crucified to death.
It has been argued that perhaps Jesus simply passed out and believing he was dead they buried him. Three days later after regaining consciousness Jesus was able to crawl out of the tomb. There are several lines of evidence that strongly dispute this scenario.
The first is that Pilot insisted the centurion who was an experienced soldier confirm personally that Jesus was dead before Pilot released Jesus’ body for burial. Second, Roman soldiers under Roman law were punished by death if a crucified prisoner escaped. There is no evidence to suggest the Roman military believed the crucifixion was bungled when the disciples, only weeks later claimed Jesus was alive.
The best that could be said of this thesis is that it is mischievous for it intentionally contradicts the weight of archaeological and documentary evidence that fortifies the finality of Roman crucifixion.
Jesus died but His resurrection was a conspiracy
Most of the apostles died in torturous ways. Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Jude and Simon were crucified, Thomas was speared to death, Matthew was axed to death, James was stoned to death and Matthias was burnt to death. If the apostles and the early supporters knew it was a conspiracy, why were they all willing to die in such agonizing ways for a lie they themselves fabricated?
Former Nixon administrator Chuck Colson[10] drew comparison to his own Watergate experience; ‘I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus rose from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Everyone was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.’
Another problem for the conspiracy theory is the Jerusalem factor. William Lane Craig[11] points out, ‘The Gospels were written in such a temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events....The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection (and been believed) under such circumstances had it not occurred.’
J. N. D. Anderson[12] adds; ‘Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence—and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication. … That simply wouldn’t make sense’. As fact two above attests, the disciples were convinced beyond doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, and so could not have been responsible for the fabrication of that story.
Jesus died but His resurrection was a hallucination
The problem with this theory is that there are too many witnesses. Jesus appears to the disciples, James, and according to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to over 500 people. The first letter to the Corinthians was one of Paul’s earliest written within 30 years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Its claims if untrue would have been disputed rather than embraced by eye-witnesses.
Since there is indisputable evidence that Paul’s writings were embraced by the early church it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus did in-fact appear to the 500. The only other alternative is that all 500 were hallucinating but Thomas J Thorburn[13] dismisses that possibility, ‘It is absolutely inconceivable that … five hundred persons, of average soundness of mind … should experience all kinds of sensuous impressions—visual, auditory, tactual—and that all these … experiences should rest entirely upon … hallucination’.
Jesus died but His resurrection was a myth
To escape the obvious failure of the swoon, conspirator and hallucination theories, some claim the resurrection was a myth. The main issue with this theory is time. Some scholars dispute the first century writing of the gospels, but no one disputes that Paul’s letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses; and Paul’s writings do enough to confirm the gospels’ claims. So how could a myth have developed?
Julius Muller[14] put the anti-myth argument this way - ‘One cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in a historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character [Jesus]....if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary fiction, as it likes not the clear present time but prefers the mysterious gloom of grey antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of space, and to remove its boldest and most rare and wonderful creations into a very remote and unknown land.’
The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach. As such New Testament scholar James Dunn[15] describes the mythical Jesus theory as a ‘thoroughly dead thesis’.
There are four ways to dispute the resurrection of Jesus yet when considered in light of the available evidence none are convincing. Rather the first two pieces of undisputed evidence supports the hypothesis that Jesus truly was who he claimed to be. In addition to the first two facts consider the widely documented conversion of Paul and James. It is beyond dispute both were sceptics who after the crucifixion became convinced that Jesus really was who he claimed to be. Both carried this burning conviction to martyrdom. How can the behaviour of these two eye-witnesses; one a sceptical brother the other an outspoken enemy, be otherwise convincingly explained? As Sherlock Homes famously remarked; ‘It you eliminate all the possible explanations, then only the impossible remains’.
For Paul the resurrection is pivotal - ‘and if Christ has not been raised (from the dead) then our preaching is useless and so is your faith (1 Corinthians 15:14)’ - and so it remains remarkable that the resurrection of Jesus, which is so often dismissed by modern thinkers remains not only plausible but the most likely historical scenario.
To escape the obvious failure of the swoon, conspirator and hallucination theories, some claim the resurrection was a myth. The main issue with this theory is time. Some scholars dispute the first century writing of the gospels, but no one disputes that Paul’s letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses; and Paul’s writings do enough to confirm the gospels’ claims. So how could a myth have developed?
Julius Muller[14] put the anti-myth argument this way - ‘One cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in a historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character [Jesus]....if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary fiction, as it likes not the clear present time but prefers the mysterious gloom of grey antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of space, and to remove its boldest and most rare and wonderful creations into a very remote and unknown land.’
The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach. As such New Testament scholar James Dunn[15] describes the mythical Jesus theory as a ‘thoroughly dead thesis’.
There are four ways to dispute the resurrection of Jesus yet when considered in light of the available evidence none are convincing. Rather the first two pieces of undisputed evidence supports the hypothesis that Jesus truly was who he claimed to be. In addition to the first two facts consider the widely documented conversion of Paul and James. It is beyond dispute both were sceptics who after the crucifixion became convinced that Jesus really was who he claimed to be. Both carried this burning conviction to martyrdom. How can the behaviour of these two eye-witnesses; one a sceptical brother the other an outspoken enemy, be otherwise convincingly explained? As Sherlock Homes famously remarked; ‘It you eliminate all the possible explanations, then only the impossible remains’.
For Paul the resurrection is pivotal - ‘and if Christ has not been raised (from the dead) then our preaching is useless and so is your faith (1 Corinthians 15:14)’ - and so it remains remarkable that the resurrection of Jesus, which is so often dismissed by modern thinkers remains not only plausible but the most likely historical scenario.
[1] The Christ Files Dickson J 2005 Blue Bottle Books
[2] John in contrast places these events several Passovers before the passion week
[3] Recent Discoveries in Biblical Lands William F. Albright 1955 New York: Funk & Wagnalls 136.
[4] As quoted from: The Christ Files Dickson J. 2005 Blue Bottle Books
[5] The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Habermas G 2004 Kregal Publications
[6] The Jesus Dynasty Tabor J. D 2006 New York: Simon and Schuster PP230
[7] Against Heresies 3.3.4 Irenaeus
[8] As quoted from: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Habermas G 2004 Kregal Publications
[7] Against Heresies 3.3.4 Irenaeus
[8] As quoted from: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Habermas G 2004 Kregal Publications
[9] Jesus of Nazareth Fredriksen P 1999 New York Vintage PP264
[10] The Paradox of Power, Power to Change Colson C www.powertochange.ie/changed/index_Leaders.
[11] Knowing the truth about the Resurrection William Lane Craig 1988 Servant Books
[12] The Resurrection of Jesus Christ J. N. D. Anderson Christianity Today,12. April, 1968
[13] The Resurrection Narratives and Modern Criticism Thomas James Thorburn (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1910.), 158, 159.
[14] The Theory of Myths in its Application to the Gospel History Examined and Confuted Muller J 1844
[15] The Christ and the Spirit Dunn J Volume I: Christology Eerdmans / T & T Clark, 1998, page 191
Thanks for directing me here Peter, yes I read the above Swoon theory comments and I must say I'm no where near convinced. There are a multitude of cases in history where people have been accidently buried alive after 'appearing' very dead. These days, with where medical science is positioned, it's rare, but how was medical science back then? And why did he die so quickly without the need to break his legs? Also, how long after the cruxifiction were the eye witness accounts documented? Decades wasn't it? Have you ever played Chinese wispers? The truth can change quite dramatically after a minute of say ten people passing it on. I do think there was a charismatic called Jesus who was put on the cross (too much documentation for that not to be true), but I still see it highly likely he was 'near death' when taken down, laid in a cave by 'someone' and that 'someone' may well have noticed life still in him, tender him for three days til he could be up and walking? Actually, thinking as I'm writing, what's to say that Judas didn't have huge pangs of guilt, paid that huge sum of , what 40 pieces of silver (was it?) to that centurion with the understanding that Jesus would just slip off out of the country.
ReplyDeleteActually, this raises some more questions in my mind. What happened after the ressurection? Surely the word got around that Jesus was walking around, did that centurion get cruxified? And where did Jesus go? OK, around for a bit, but did he then leave the country (or did he go to heaven)? Did he live to an old age in India say? Did he have children? What's the official word on this? Ian
Thanks for the comment Ian. I think it is useful to state up front that nothing from history can be exhaustively proven. So in this sense there is a gap between 'historical proof' and scientific proof. But to a historian the question is not 'can it be explained categorically' but what is the most reasonable explanation of the facts as we know them.
ReplyDeleteSo in the case of Jesus; the first fact we know is the finality of Roman crucifixion. You mentioned examples of people left for dead but later recovering. Can you give an example where this happened to someone who was crucified? May I suggest that medically speaking this is an entirely different scenario to the ones you cited.
The idea that a centurion was paid off goes against what we know about imperial Rome. You also need to deal with the fact that the disciples were convinced Jesus rose from the grave. Would they really have been convinced of this one fact if Jesus was taken down early? The point is only weeks later the disciples preached Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem, in the face of their Roman enemies who crucified Jesus. Why was their story not immediately discredited, but instead embraced by Rome (they became the Christian empire after all)?
But aside from these scenarios, I think the most compelling argument for the resurrection is the change of attitude in James and others. We know from several documentary sources that growing up James never believed Jesus was God (you get that with brothers). But after the death of Jesus, he became the leader of the Jerusalem church, and was martyred for claiming Jesus was the son of God. Why the change of heart, which he held unswervingly to martyrdom? Surely James then is a credible eye-witness?
So from a scientific standpoint no advance can be made, but that is not true from a historical perspective; and from that perspective the resurrection thesis best fits the data; it is the most reasonable explanation. Of course if you are a naturalist you will reject prima facie the evidence...but then there are many atheists who have looked closely and changed their opinion.
Thanks Peter, I see you've asked me for an example specifically of someone crucified who lived, well that specific request might be difficult being 2,000 years ago or so, but I thought I'd check Snopes (I use Snopes a lot to debunk the vast majority of 'amazing fact' emails floating around that are completely false), and found this site;
Deletehttp://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp
that states 'true' for a plethora of people being buried that were truly thought dead by the 'professionals' but in fact still alive. Are you saying crucifiction is in a much higher ballpark than other gruesome ways to die?
With James and the disciples, I'm saying that they truly believed that Jesus really did die, just as the multitude of experts through the ages of alive burials had falsely believed, this to me is easily Occam's Razor, if the experts can think so, why not non-experts? BTW, I found the below when looking up Swoon Theory;
"It is said to have been uncommon for a crucified healthy adult to die in time described by the Gospels. The Gospel of Mark reports that Jesus was crucified at nine in the morning and died at three in the afternoon, or just six hours after the crucifixion. Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus had died so soon (Mk 15:44). The average time of suffering before death by crucifixion is stated to be about 2–4 days, and there were reported cases where the victims lived for as long as 9 days. Of course the time of death by crucifixion depended on the type of crucifixion and no accounts have been found of the exact method of Jesus' crucifixion.
Further support is lent to the theory when Jesus' body in the Gospel narratives is quickly whisked away and hidden from public view. No elaborate funeral arrangements and no public viewing of the corpse are known to take place. The body is taken down from the cross and immediately handed over to a close disciple (Joseph of Arimathea), who transports Jesus' body to a close-by roomy secure burial chamber. A major reason to doubt this hypothesis is that the Gospel of John states that a soldier thrust a spear in Jesus' side before he was taken off the cross. However, the Gospel of John is the latest of the four canonical gospels; none of the remaining three contain this story.
Oh and also Peter, I'm keen to hear your answer on my later questions above I posed to you, Ian
Thanks for your reply Ian. You do make some interesting points but I can't help feel you have moved away from my starting premise which was simply; given the finality of Roman crucifixion is it more likely that Jesus died on the cross than survived the experience.
DeleteIn your response you have added a prima facie proposition; namely given that people do not rise from the dead then despite the finality of Roman crucifixion it is more likely that Jesus survived the cross. But here I can't help but feel that you are begging the question for your response simply reduces to; because people do not rise from the dead Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Could I encourage you to put this prima facie conclusion aside and approach the data simply on its merits. I appreciate you have tried to justify your prima facie conclusion by arguing that Jesus died quickly; but was he not brutalised? whipped? made to carry his own cross to the point of collapse? Does not the historical account then suggest Jesus was already near death before he even made it to the cross? And then there is the spiritual aspect; according to the account did not God forsake him? did He not take on the sins of the world? Surely all these factors would have contributed to his quicker than normal death?
Further Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin which was responsible for condemning Jesus to death so it better fits the data that Joseph was guilty for either his part in the saga, or more likely for not standing up to the council (for the fear of death I guess) when he clearly believed Jesus was the true son of God (because in the end he did risk death to request his body). Making sure Jesus was at least properly buried seems to me to be more consistent with the built up courage we often see in remorseful men after their initial lack of action played a role in the course of events that lead up to the tragedy.
Re your other questions, I am keen to answer them but I think it is useful to first flesh out the pivotal question of the resurrection; for if you cannot be convinced that resurrection is the most likely possibility then the other questions really do not matter. But if you do change your perspective then it will be instructive to deal with the rest of your objections. Hope that's OK?
That's OK Peter and makes sense to deal with this first. I disagree that I've simply jumped to such a conclusion by just assuming that people don't rise from the dead, but base it on the snopes approved examples of people in history who were seemily very dead actually hadn't died yet. Did you read the examples? I'll paste some examples below to illustrate my point;
ReplyDeleteOh dear, I've just discovered that you can't past from Snopes (I think)! Anyway, if you've read it all, you would have seen all those extreme cases, similar in extremity to cruxifiction I would say. Have a look at all those cases where the person had been hanged (about half way down after epople coming to life during embalming) and one's chest opened and still came to life. I'm sure you'll be amazed reading the whole article, if you haven't already, it's just a fact that sometimes people can seem totally dead when they in fact are not. I don't see why you wouldn't see this as a possibility. I do look forward to your comments on some of those extreme specific cases mentioned in the article. Thanks, Ian
Thanks for the examples. I did look at them; great advertisement for cremation I would say. So let me try to clarify your position; are you saying that because there have been several cases (0.001%) in the past four hundred years of people being miss diagnosed (most of whom suffered from particular ailments which resulted in the misdiagnosis) then it is more likely (remember not to introduce any other prima facie proposition) that Jesus was miss-diagnosed rather than simply crucified? Really? I think any reasonable person would intuit that all things being equal - if Jesus was crucified then he probably died from it. To conclude otherwise demands more inputs - and I maintain that the most relevant one that you have to draw on is that 'people cannot rise from the dead'. What other possible reason would you have to prefer the 0.001% possibility over the 99.999% one?
DeletePeter, so your fundamentally saying that a Roman centurion 2,000 years ago, knew enough about the human body to only get wrong stating someone being dead on a cross, once every hundred thousand times? Could you please send the reference to back up your 0.001% rate? And if they were so good at knowing for sure when someone was irretrievably dead, why did they have the practice of breaking their legs to be sure? Curious they didn't break Jesus legs, I must say.......
ReplyDeleteSnopes found less than 50, lets increase that to 100,000, to account for all the cases they do not know about and then lets say conservatively only 10 billion people died in the same period. Didn't mean for you to take too seriously, just ball parking :).
DeleteMore importantly don't forget the Romans were pretty good at crucifixion, they did it a lot - and they had some pretty good techniques for telling if people were dead - like stabbing them in the side with a spear to check if the water had separated from the blood (maybe that's what they needed to do in the middle ages as well).
The practice of breaking legs was so the crucified would die quickly (suffocation because couldn't push up to get a breath) before the Sabbath. There is evidence to show that the Romans administrators often respected this religious request (for the sake of Pax Romana) unless there was a political reason to do otherwise.
I would say that about 2,000 years ago, when there was only primitive understanding of states that humans can be in when unconscious/coma etc, that a Roman soldier could have very often mistaken someone for dead but still alive, particularly only after a few hours rather than a few days (apparently normal). OK, still it would be a minority event, but as I'm sure you must realise, statistically, minority events MUST happen, if they didn't then that would be what is strange. This relates back to our discussion of coincidences. With the remarkable Kennedy/Lincoln coincidence flying around the web, the odds being hugely low, would you immediately conclude something metaphycial like a miracle or or would you say that Kennedy is Lincoln reincarnated (you'd be amazed at how many people thing that)? Or would you say just a chance happenstance, like Jesus didn't actually die even though he looked it?
ReplyDeleteI have another question for you. Did Jesus do all his miracles (besides ressurection) before he came to Jerusalem? If so, then none in Jerusalem? If so why? Were the city folk harder to fool than the country folk? Is that why the Jews turned against him after him being adulated prior to showing up in Jerusalem? Wasn't Pilate surprised at the venom of the Jews?
I do not deny that its statistically possible that Jesus might have survived the cross, but a spear in the side must lessen the odds. My point was that the overwhelmingly more likely explanation is that he died - so how do you address that possibility?
DeleteAccording to the synoptic gospels Jesus only entered Jerusalem the week before Passover. Perhaps he did perform miracles that were not recorded before he was arrested? Perhaps he needed the Jews to turn against him so that they would crucify him. I'd say he did at least one; he came back to life in Jerusalem.
Also many scholars feel the gospels paints Pilot in a pretty good light because these works were written for a gentile audience, a Roman audience - and it would not do to be too critical of Rome's part in the whole saga. Perhaps that's why the Pharisees and Sadducees got the brunt of the blame. Apparently other sources suggest Pilot was pretty ruthless.
I saw somewhere that only one of the Gospels say that Jesus got a spear in the side and the others don't, is that right? If so, why wouldn't the others mention such an important factor contributing to the likelihood of His death? And with the more likely odds of not a misdiagnosis of the Roman soldier, I've noticed that the experts tipping the Super-Rugby competition at the end of the season are only a little bit over 50% (ie, pure random) peppered with amazingly unlikely results (ie betting odds of 30 to 1 dark horses winning). It's amazing how much 'most likely' doesn't happen (Murphy's Law?).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, let's leave this for the time being, can you give me an account of what happened after the cruxifiction in the longer term. Did that Roman soldier get cruxified? How much longer did Jesus live? Did he stay in the area or go to India? Did he marry have kids? What happened? Thanks
Peter, did you see this in the news recently?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.euronews.com/2014/03/01/at-funeral-home-dead-mississippi-man-kicks-to-escape-body-bag/ ?
Yet another resurrection?
Yes John is the only account that mentions the spear in the side. Perhaps the others thought no need to mention it since no one would doubt that when you are crucified; you die? How many other details were omitted?
DeleteBefore moving on; I noticed you failed to answer what you would do with the 'most likely' scenario. Don't you feel offering exceptions rather than addressing 'the most likely scenario' is just a little disingenuous? If you could address this one question for me then I'll be happy to move onto new ground :)
Peter, the thing is our experience is littered with less likely scenarios, why Murphy's Law keeps getting quoted ad infinitum. And knowing that today, REAL miracles just don't happen, there's always a physical explanation now that science can do that. So we're back to where we started, where did all the miracles go? Doesn't it now seem, with the benefit of all the accumulated science knowledge of the ages, that 'most likely' may well be that He didn't actually die, albeit did look REALLY dead, rather than magic?
ReplyDeleteOK Ian its possible. But how do you account for James? Before Jesus died he was the cynical brother; but after he met the risen Jesus he became convinced Jesus was the son of God - a belief he then took to martyrdom. Are you saying Jesus, the upright character who preached a revolutionary message of love, kindness, and integrity survived death by some remarkable coincidence, then hoodwinked his cynical brother? Do you honestly feel that is the best accounting of the data?
DeleteI agree that James must have truly believed that Jesus did die on the cross and hence was the son of God, as all the others did. And this leads into the question I've been asking you for some time now, what happened in the weeks/months/years after the ressurection? Did Jesus disappear not long after the disciples (and James I guess) saw him alive? If was only a matter of a couple of days, he wouldn't have been wookwinking for long. Actually a thought, if Jesus 'ALMOST' died, THEN he may well truly believe HIMSELF He was the son of God, and hence was not intentionally hoodwinking anyone?
ReplyDeleteAlos the other questions, was the centurion cruxified (as word must have gotten back to Pilot)? And where did Jesus end up and what circumstances, or did He just disappear after a few days?
According to the NT Jesus was crucified during the Passover and ascended 10 days before Pentecost so in total
Deletehe remained in Israel around 40 days, in which time he appeared not only to the disciples but also to at least 500 people (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
Perhaps he hoodwinked them all? But that goes against everything he taught, a message I submit, was without paralleled integrity in history. I therefore find it far more probable (since I do not have a prima facie objection to resurrection) that the witnesses were convinced be was God simply because 1) they witnessed his crucifixion 2) they witnessed him - in - body (ate brawled fish) after resurrection.
As I said in my last message, perhaps he wasn't intentionally hoodwinking anyone. If I went through a crucifixion and woke up alive, I'd be tempted to believe I was the son of God, especially considering He believed it prior anyway. So He would be totally sincere whilst spreading the message as it seems He was prior to the crucifixion. And sure, the simple miracle believing folk of two thousand years ago would be believing it also, seemed dead then I'm eating with Him. Which raises another question, why didn't the Jews believe it? You must admit, they're generally a very smart race (over a third of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish and they're not bad at business!), so why weren't they convinced? And haven't been for two thousand years.
ReplyDeleteOK, so he travelled around Israel for 40 days meeting over 500 people, surely it would have got back to Pilot. What did he do then? Did he execute that centurion? Did he try to track down Jesus? What happened after 40 days? Did Jesus die then or did he go away chased by Pilot? Why isn't there any history after 40 days?
First, he believed he was the son of God before he was crucified. His resurrection did not delude him.
ReplyDeleteSecond, many Jews did believe he rose from the grave (the Acts talk of thousands that were converted every day - which given their long history of Mosaic belief is actually astounding - but obviously not all Jews were eye-witnesses or lived in Jerusalem so not all would believe).
Third, Matthew records that the Roman authorities claimed his body was stolen - which again confirms he was 1) dead and 2) the grave was now empty. There is no record of Pilot punishing the centurion after finding the grave empty, which is consistent with the claim that the Jews had in-fact stolen the body (somehow got past the guards); in effect Pilot did not believe the superstitious ramblings of grief stricken inferior back-water Jews, or even his soldiers who claimed to have seen Jesus alive. Jesus did not visit Pilot post crucifixion.
Forth, the account makes it clear that Jesus did not die or leave after 40 days, he ascended to heaven (what ever that means). If you accept that Jesus is the son of God because he came back to life after three days in the grave, then ascending into heaven does not require any additional stretching. Either he was the son of God and all things are possible as the plainest reading of the story suggests, or he wasn't, and the whole thing isn't possible so another albeit unlikely scenario must have happened. There is no other choice.
Thanks Peter, responding to your itemised responses above;
ReplyDeleteFirst, read my second sentence above, you have just repeated what I said, this, reinforcing my posit that He wasn't intentionally hookwinking anyone as both before and after He believed Himself to be the son of God.
Second, sure Christianity had to initiate from the Jews, His followers were all Jews! My point was that the vasted majority of Jews (including citizens of Jerusalem) did and do not believe He was the son of God, how come?
Third, how on earth does the fact that the Roman authorities believing that His body was stolen confirm He was dead!? Why couldn't He have just recovered (may with tendering by someone) and simply left (bribing the guards)? Why didn't Pilot believe his own soldiers that Jesus was walking around? Why wouldn't he check out the story that if true would have huge consequences for hinself and his career? This absolutely doesn't add up, are you seeing the cracks yet?
Fourth, "..did not die or leave after 40 days, He ascended to heaven..." You may well ask "whatever that means?"! So to ascend to heaven doesn't require death? So Jesus is now physically alive in heaven, I really think you need to tell me what that actually means so as not to just sound like more 'magic' (like the plethora of miracles that stopped happening over two thousand years ago). Regards, Ian
Ian I'll try to keep to the four points to make it easier to track.
DeleteFirst, my point was we know from historical data that he believed he was the son of God before he went to the cross - he did not come to that realisation after surviving the cross as you have suggested. So if we take historical data into account we must conclude that if he did not die then he definitely hoodwinked the witnesses.
Second, You are falling into the classical mistake of judging history by modern standards. How would all of Jerusalem find out? Did they go home and watch the six o-clock news? Necessarily only the witnesses believed because they were the ones that saw Jesus, and then the belief spread through their networks of friends - of course some believed the original witnesses, others didn't. The more sensible question is how many of the witnesses believed. And here the tone of the story suggest (not conclusively) that if not all then at least the vast majority did. Everyone else needed to be convinced just like you need to be convinced now.
Third, wouldn't that then be; he recovered and walked out of the tomb, not his body, as in dead body, was stolen? Re Pilot, Jesus was a no-body, a criminal who was killed to appease the equally lowly Jewish Sanhedrin. Do you know how many people Pilot crucified? Thousands if not tens of thousands. From his perspective why would he care about rumours that may or may not have arose around Jesus' death. It was only much later (more than 40 days) when the movement took hold that it became a real problem. By then Pilot could not track Jesus down to check out the story - he had a new movement to contend with.
I must say I do enjoy your sense of humour though. You put together a scenario that is at best unlikely if not entirely implausible, and ignore every bit of historical data to defend it, then ask if I see the cracks. Very good :)
Fourth, if you cannot accept Jesus' resurrection then of course his ascension is equally unbelievable. Alternatively if you accept one then the other follows easily enough (Enoch and Elijah did not die either, but went to heaven - what ever that means?). Is not ''magic'' a good definition for events we cannot explain? But that in itself does not go to the crux of the matter; which is the question - did the resurrection happen? If the answer is no then Christianity is a fraud, no doubt; but I have never seen (except for a priori arguments which by definition beg the question) as much as a shred of evidence that suggests that it did not or could not have happened. In the end there must be a place for faith.
First, please re-read my earlier response above pated here "...He wasn't intentionally hookwinking anyone as both before and after He believed Himself to be the son of God." I'm AGREEING that He must have prior and after believed himself to be son of God, only to be reinforced by a near death experience. I'm sure He believed himself resurrected as did His disciples, they all genuinely believed, so no one was trying to hoodwink anyone. Even though He must have REALLY looked dead, we now know with so many examples that the person can still be alive (apparently, it takes a lot to kill someone, not that I would know!).
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I think you're missing the point. The small number of eye witnesses were'nt able to convince the clever Jews but were able to convince the not-so-clever punters....
Third, yes, that's what I'm saying could have happened, so the (possibly bribed) Roman guards had to come up with some story. Actually, this part of the official story doesn't make sense either. Which Romans said His body was stolen and hwo did they know? If they witness the body being taken, did they say, go ahead, do you want a hand? No finger printing in those days, so it must have been a Roman witness? Please tell me exactly what the official version is? And your comments that Pilate didn't care thinking him a nobody, REAALY!? A quote from Wiki;
"In all four gospel accounts, Pilate lobbies for Jesus to be spared his eventual fate of execution, and acquiesces only when the crowd refused to relent. He thus seeks to avoid personal responsibility for the death of Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew, Pilate washes his hands to show that he was not responsible for the execution of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.[7] The Gospel of Mark, depicting Jesus as innocent of plotting against the Roman Empire, portrays Pilate as reluctant to execute Jesus.[7] In the Gospel of Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee, also finds nothing treasonable in Jesus' actions.[7] In the Gospel of John, Pilate states “I find no guilt in him [Jesus]” and he asks the Jews if Jesus should be released from custody."
Seems to me he cared...and it seems he really didn't want Jesus dead, got his wish?
BTW, I'm enjoying your sense of humour too, thanks for the compliment.
So Enoch and Elijah also went to heaven without dying !? If I convert, will I also be able to do that? Yes, magic in the past is sclence today (only God of the Gaps is left). Not time for you to relinquish magic, maybe as you get more worldly.......
BTW, regarding no shred of evidence, I wonder if the Jews agree with you? Regards, Ian
Peter, I mentioned above the Jewish view on the events, so I did a search and found this by a Rabbi;
ReplyDeletehttp://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/resurrection.html
Please paste this and read over the whole of this article plus the table. I'd very much like to hear your views of this very convincing argument, regards, Ian
Responding to your three items above. First, C.S. Lewis said Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic or Lord, you don't think he hoodwinked anyone so that rules one the first, you have obviously ruled out the third, so I guess you are left with lunatic - sure, that's possible.
DeleteSecond, the 500 who witnessed Jesus resurrected were Jews. They believed. It's only when they transmitted the story to the wider population that we find sceptics. But you need to view this through their expectation of a messiah who would defeat the Romans. A guy dying on the cross does not fit the bill so is it any wonder many remained sceptical?
You also asked for the official position. According to Matthew 28 - 11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
So according to Matthew the Roman soldiers did conspire with the high priests (which presupposes the body was missing - I know you accept that). I know the gospels also say Jesus was important to Pilot, I'm just pointing out that many historians suspect this aspect of the story was too enthusiastically described so to make the point that it was not Rome's fault. Perhaps Pilot believed the story? Perhaps he dug deeper and became a secret follower of the way? Perhaps he really did not care as much as the authors of the gospels make out? The point is we do not have any historical data so we cannot really know.
Now onto modern day Jews. Obviously they reject Jesus as messiah so they hardly approach the data impartially. More specifically the arguments set out in your provided link are not historically balanced – for ironically, if you do not take minor differences of historical texts as a sign of authenticity of multiple witnesses (for example three people who witness a car crash five minutes ago will all disagree on details) then their own OLD TESTAMENT is in REAL trouble.
Rather discrepancy (as seen in the gospels) points toward authenticity; not fabrication. History 101.
Well, I think 'lunatic' may be a bit harsh, I do believe that He must have been very charismatic and convincing enough to convince Himself.
ReplyDeleteNow on that link, seems to me you really didn't read it all (skimmed?) to say what you've said, so I'd liketo past some cherry picked sentences for you to give comments please;
"Bear in mind that Christianity is not the only religion to have declared that its savior or demigod was resurrected from the grave. The story of a deity who defeated the grip of death is one of the most common themes embedded in the plethora of religions that have emerged since time immemorial. Your question, therefore, should be expanded even more widely because the claim of a divine savior who is born of a virgin, suffers a brutal death, and ascends to heaven was widespread among pagan and Gnostic religions during the first century (this was especially true for the regions around Tarsus, Paul's hometown). Mythologies throughout the Roman Empire and beyond contained popular beliefs that notable mortals and god-men were born of virgins and returned from the dead. See accounts of Romulus, Apollonius of Tyana, Drusilla, Claudius, Dionysus-Bacchus, Tammuz, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, and Buddha."
"...The stories told in the New Testament, and the passion narratives in particular, are so inconsistent, that the resurrection story collapses under careful scrutiny. The conflicting testimonies of the evangelists are so unreliable, that they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law. In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls." MY comment here, examples are, who carried the cross?, different times and days He was crucified, different last dying words on the cross, different number of days in the tombe, different number of people who came to the tomb (all 4 gospels were different), different number of angles at the tomb giving different instructions, Jesus appears first to different people, different number of times (and places) Jesus appears after resurrection, and many more. In no way could anyone call these minor....
And after the Rabbi has highlighted the totally irreconcilable differences in detail between Mathew and John, this "It is at this final juncture of the narrative that the accounts of Matthew and John become hopelessly irreconcilable. The question every missionary must answer is the following: When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel(s) already informed her that Jesus had arisen from the dead?..we are simply gazing at two entirely different stories. Christian apologists frequently argue that the inconsistent resurrection accounts are analogous to a traffic accident viewed by four different witnesses – each who sees it conveys a distinct perspective. This might be a tenable idea if the evangelists were actually on the scene and watched the story unfold as the women approached the tomb. Yet, this was not the case. Not only were the Gospel writers not eyewitnesses, they didn't even write their accounts of the story until at least 40-70 years after it allegedly took place. Moreover, inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, e.g. date, time, and place cannot be dismissed as differences in perspective."
"There is another significant difference between conflicting accounts of a traffic accident and contradictory stories of the resurrection narratives. The testimonies of a traffic accident are believable because they are likely to have occurred, and make sense in our world. The resurrection story, on the other hand, is a biological and scientific impossibility. Thus, the only reason for believing the numerous fantastic claims of miraculous occurrences in the New Testament – defying all natural laws – is the believer's total reliance on the credibility of the divine author."
Yes I confess - seen the arguments before so I skimmed. More importantly what is your point? That many traditional Jews don't believe Jesus rose again? They certainly believe he was crucified - it says so in the Talmud. Does that not damage your own argument (that he did not die at all)?
ReplyDeleteYou naughty boy just skimming like that! You say you've seen all the arguments before, really? I don't think I could ever say that as it's actually an impossibility unless you are God.
ReplyDeleteThe main thrust of the article that I wanted you to see was that the disparities between the four narratives are just too huge to see them coming from the inspiration of God. The Jews may well think He actually did die, the Muslems think He didn't (lived to a 120 I saw somewhere), I think it likely He swooned, but I may be wrong, who knows, the point is the hugely different accounts for a piece of magic miracle 2,000 years ago written by people who weren't around doesn't inspire much credibility I'm afraid, especially as the Bible's supposed to be the word of God.
BTW, are you going to go see that Noah movie, looks quite good actually.
A very naughty boy. But on this particular subject you might be really surprised how the same arguments do keep resurfacing (so possibly don't need to be God, just the guy in groundhog day). I do take your point but the judgment of the texts is subjective and the judgement your source makes (I did read it in detail) is not consistent with the wider body of both Christian and non-Christian scholarship.
DeleteNow its my turn to offer a reference. Could you please watch this youtube clip (at least I don't make you read stuff) which is between what I would say are two very highly decorated thinkers (one an atheist albeit I think he now thinks of himself as a deist, the other a theist). I think they discuss and address a lot of your points far better than I ever could.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KurJhweOHA
Ian re contradictions in the gospel accounts have a look at this link :
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA6g46R-adg
Thanks for the link, I watched it with interest. Bear in mind that it stresses the differences to be minor and examines them separately, but when you compare the below overall stoies of first Mathew, then John;
ReplyDeleteAfter the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.' This is my message for you." So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes. But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni!" which means Teacher. Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
It's like two totally different stories !!
Is it? Mary Magdalene, probably amongst others not necessarily mentioned, went to the tomb on the first day of the week - found that it was empty - they then saw angels that explained that his body had not been removed but that he was arisen-then told to go tell the disciples. It's the same story - they just focus on different aspects of the series of events - just as you would expect from any multiple eye-witness re-telling. The fact that the accounts are like this makes them more plausible, not less.
ReplyDeleteThe same story !? I don't think so.
ReplyDelete1. Matthew says Mary arrives for an earthquake, descending angel who moves the rock and sits on it, John says the rock was already removed apparently with no angel sitting on it.
2. Matthew says the angel said Jesus wasn't there, go tell the disciples that He's raised and headed for Galilee so she leaves, whereas John says after seing the stone removed she then gets the disciples and goes inside the tomb where there are two angels and Jesus HIMSELF inside that tomb (not headed for Galilee).
3. Matthew said He had ascended, BUT John said he hadn't (they couldn't touch Him).
Hardly just different focuses. How long was it between the writing of these accounts, and which one is right?
BTW, I took my young son to see the movie 'Noah'. The movie was great with excellent special effects, but I suspect the screenplay wasn't all that close to the novel. In fact it was quite a sci-fi movie with angels imbedded in rocks (the 'watchers' apparently) who actually built the ark. I must say, watching this raised a multitude of questions on the unlikelihood that something like this could ever happen (my son who's going to a Catholic school was rolling his eyes!). I could go through an extensive list, but first, what's your take on Noah? If it was just a local flood, why bother having the flood at all? regards, Ian
Eyewitnesses at car crashes often say, the blue car came around the corner, and another eye-witness the red car came around the corner. The point is not if the car was blue or red, but whether there was a crash or not. No historians have an issue with this stuff. These accounts are not inerrant, they are eye-witness accounts told after the event, and as such it is not a matter of one being correct, the others not, just that all the details need to be considered in a harmonised way.
ReplyDeleteRegards Noah, have a read of the article in this blog under the judgment tag on the right hand side - that will hopefully give a good starting point.
OK, so were the Gospels written by men driven by the inspiration of God, or just writen by men who through oral accounts had just heard the story (like someone reporting an accident they'd heard about)? If the former, why the discrepancies, and if the latter, how sure can you be certain that He for sure actually died on the cross based on just earthly humans 'hearing about it' decades later (ever played Chinese whispers?).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Noah, should we move to that article after this? I read the article, I didn't see a definitive view from you as to exactly what you think did happen. Can you give me a nutshell version that we can examine? Regards, Ian
I believe the oral tradition as understood through their cultural and religious lens was recorded in the gospels. In the whole New Testament there are only a few examples where discrepancies result in errors that might impact our theological outlook (spelling or grammatical mistakes are not usually important). On the whole, because of sufficient redundancy, the documents are treated as sufficiently reliable - at least in supporting critical doctrines - but in general particular events that are not attested to heavily should be viewed with a level of openness.
ReplyDeleteIan here, I'm anonymous again because I seem to have been stripped of my identity (I need some password I don't have?).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, why wouldn't the oral story collectively change together over the decades?
And Noah, I see you don't thin there was a global flood, just a local (which happens all the time), so do you believe there actually was a Noah, boat and animals?
I wrote a new blog, can we trust the new testament. Maybe you might be interested. Should find it on the main page under blog. I don't believe there was a global flood because I do not see how the evidence can support that conclusion - but I do take the story as historical - something happened.
ReplyDelete