Atheist conclusions about the historicity of the resurrection

Agreed on all points including your aforementioned theory that Jesus didn't die on the cross.
In addition to ruling out 1) coordinated conspiracies to lie, and 2) mass hallucinations, the other theory I tend to rule out is the claim that 3) the resurrection is a much later legendary account not published until seven decades after the fact.

There are written sources in 1 Corinthians that almost certainly show that the early Christian belief in the resurrection goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church, in the 30s AD.

That's not nearly enough time for legends to take root and propagate. The legends of King Arthur, Achilles, and Agamemnon are published at least 500 years after the men they might be very loosely based on lived.

The theory you and I have discussed is the only naturalistic explanation that doesn't invoke miracles, nor coordinated conspiracies, or implausible legends.
 
In addition to ruling out 1) coordinated conspiracies to lie, and 2) mass hallucinations, the other theory I tend to rule out is the claim that 3) the resurrection is a much later legendary account not published until seven decades after the fact.

There are written sources in 1 Corinthians that almost certainly show that the early Christian belief in the resurrection goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church, in the 30s AD.

That's not nearly enough time for legends to take root and propagate. The legends of King Arthur, Achilles, and Agamemnon are published at least 500 years after the men they might be very loosely based on lived.

The theory you and I have discussed is the only naturalistic explanation that doesn't invoke miracles, nor coordinated conspiracies, or implausible legends.
Agreed. I see it a the ripple effect.

While the Romans nor the Pharisees wouldn't give a shit about a carpenter rabbi, the effect such a person has on others would certainly provide evidence of their existence.

That said, since there's no evidence of "magic" or supernatural powers, then a logical explanation of events fitting within the rules of the Natural Universe should be considered. Namely that, even though Jesus existed and was crucified, he didn't die on the cross. The fact he disappeared shortly thereafter means he either left the area or died of his wounds afterward.
 
The fact he disappeared shortly thereafter means he either left the area or died of his wounds afterward.
That, or was robbed, beaten, murdered, disappeared. Jesus did a lot of walking around Galilee, Judea, Roman Syria. Traveling was a very dangerous activity in the ancient world; bandits and brigands patrolled the roads.

The parable of the good Samaritan is even a vivid demonstration of how dangerous travel was.

Anyone who was kidnapped, robbed, and murdered could just disappear. It's not like law enforcement organized task forces to look for missing people back then.

The moral of the story, it would not be surprising at all for someone who did a lot of traveling in the ancient world to just disappear.
 
That, or was robbed, beaten, murdered, disappeared. Jesus did a lot of walking around Galilee, Judea, Roman Syria. Traveling was a very dangerous activity in the ancient world; bandits and brigands patrolled the roads.

The parable of the good Samaritan is even a vivid demonstration of how dangerous travel was.

Anyone who was kidnapped, robbed, and murdered could just disappear. It's not like law enforcement organized task forces to look for missing people back then.

The moral of the story, it would not be surprising at all for someone who did a lot of traveling in the ancient world to just disappear.
He had his apostles and followers for protection. A likely theory would be that he withdrew into privacy to heal and died of his wounds.
 
He had his apostles and followers for protection. A likely theory would be that he withdrew into privacy to heal and died of his wounds.
He seemed to be traveling alone in some of the resurrection accounts, and he seemed to be solo when he appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.

I agree that disappearing could result for multiple reasons, like the ones you stated, and there would be nothing surprising about somebody disappearing in the ancient world and never being heard from again.
 
He seemed to be traveling alone in some of the resurrection accounts, and he seemed to be solo when he appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.

I agree that disappearing could result for multiple reasons, like the ones you stated, and there would be nothing surprising about somebody disappearing in the ancient world and never being heard from again.
Given the timeline and nature of the sources, there could be a little exaggeration involved. There's also the possibility of a little cray-cray in such behavior.
 
In addition to ruling out 1) coordinated conspiracies to lie, and 2) mass hallucinations, the other theory I tend to rule out is the claim that 3) the resurrection is a much later legendary account not published until seven decades after the fact.

There are written sources in 1 Corinthians that almost certainly show that the early Christian belief in the resurrection goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church, in the 30s AD.

That's not nearly enough time for legends to take root and propagate. The legends of King Arthur, Achilles, and Agamemnon are published at least 500 years after the men they might be very loosely based on lived.

The theory you and I have discussed is the only naturalistic explanation that doesn't invoke miracles, nor coordinated conspiracies, or implausible legends.
Resurrection is also a Jewish belief.

all those people already believed in resurrection.
 
Resurrection is also a Jewish belief.

all those people already believed in resurrection.
No, the Pharisees believed in a general resurrection at the end of times. The Sadduces didn't believe in an afterlife at all.

Either way, the resurrection of the individual Jesus doesn't fit neatly with first century Jewish belief, which is what makes it unusual and unexpected in that cultural context.
 
No, the Pharisees believed in a general resurrection at the end of times. The Sadduces didn't believe in an afterlife at all.

Either way, the resurrection of the individual Jesus doesn't fit neatly with first century Jewish belief, which is what makes it unusual and unexpected in that cultural context.
that's believing in resurrection, dillhole.

Ramban said so.
 
No, the Pharisees believed in a general resurrection at the end of times. The Sadduces didn't believe in an afterlife at all.

Either way, the resurrection of the individual Jesus doesn't fit neatly with first century Jewish belief, which is what makes it unusual and unexpected in that cultural context.
Atheist haters like Fredo, like Trump, could care less.

All they want to do is spread their hate.
 
Given the timeline and nature of the sources, there could be a little exaggeration involved. There's also the possibility of a little cray-cray in such behavior.
I lean towards exaggeration, hyperbole, and metaphor.

When I read Romans I don't get the sense of an insane person. Something very radical happened to Paul because he went from a Sanhedrin persecutor of the Christians, to an Apostle for the Christians, when there was no plausible financial, political, or personal benefit to make the switch.
 
I lean towards exaggeration, hyperbole, and metaphor.

When I read Romans I don't get the sense of an insane person. Something very radical happened to Paul because he went from a Sanhedrin persecutor of the Christians, to an Apostle for the Christians, when there was no plausible financial, political, or personal benefit to make the switch.
I suspect Paul's writings have been cleaned up a bit over the ages. The First Council of Nicaea cherry-picked what books they liked to support Constantine's desire to push desired Christian beliefs. Specifically ones that affirmed the divinity of Jesus against the "heretic" Arians.

First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.

The council attempted but failed to establish a uniform date for Easter. It issued decrees on many other matters, including the proper method of consecrating bishops, a condemnation of lending money at interest by clerics, and a refusal to allow bishops, priests, and deacons to move from one church to another. It also confirmed the primacy of Alexandria and Jerusalem over other sees in their respective areas. Socrates Scholasticus, a 5th-century Byzantine historian, said that the council intended to make a canon enforcing celibacy of the clergy, but it failed to do so when some objected.
 
Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann evaluated every reference to Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament, as well as apocryphal literature. Through this approach, he offers a reconstruction of the probable course of events as well as the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on the cross, the burial of his body, his reported resurrection on the third day, and subsequent appearances to various disciples.

The Christian faith Luedemann concludes ultimately stems from hallucinations of Peter and the other disciples, both men and women.

From a modern perspective this leads to the inescapable conclusion that the primary witnesses to Jesus' resurrection were victims of self-deception.

In conclusion, he asks whether in light of the nonhistoricity of Jesus' resurrection, thinking people today can legitimately and in good conscience still call themselves Christians.



https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christ-Historical-Inquiry/dp/1591022452
https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800627928/The-Resurrection-of-Jesus

I can see why non-believers are determined to try to find some way to discount the resurrection and God.

I think it might help them to sleep knowing that when their time comes, they are damned for eternity with no hope of salvation.
 
y
I suspect Paul's writings have been cleaned up a bit over the ages. The First Council of Nicaea cherry-picked what books they liked to support Constantine's desire to push desired Christian beliefs. Specifically ones that affirmed the divinity of Jesus against the "heretic" Arians.

First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.


The council attempted but failed to establish a uniform date for Easter. It issued decrees on many other matters, including the proper method of consecrating bishops, a condemnation of lending money at interest by clerics, and a refusal to allow bishops, priests, and deacons to move from one church to another. It also confirmed the primacy of Alexandria and Jerusalem over other sees in their respective areas. Socrates Scholasticus, a 5th-century Byzantine historian, said that the council intended to make a canon enforcing celibacy of the clergy, but it failed to do so when some objected.
yes.

the council of nicea has nothing to do with christs intended message.

:truestory:

that was the transformation into an imperial cult designed to fragment minds and make people swear to irrelevant bullshit.
 
Back
Top