At What Point?

[Cypress]

This was, indeed, a severe issue for the early Church. There was no conception of the Messiah that fit with Jesus' ministry and certainly the ending made it even more difficult.

I am curious, though. You put so much focus on the Jerusalem Church (despite the fact that somehow Paul disagreed with them AND WON despite not having ever met Jesus himself)...do you think Jesus was a scam artist? If he woke up in the tomb thinking he'd come back from the dead and then talking to his Disciples I'm curious what happened to him then? If he just wandered off it would kind of make Jesus to be a con man. If he remained around preaching you'd think his Disciples would note that.

But they claimed he vanished in front of them or ascended to heaven.

So do you think he actually "disappeared" while sitting talking to his disciples or do you think he somehow rose up into the sky at some point and they mistakenly assumed he'd gone to Heaven?

It seems the real problem with your exegesis is trying to explain away the ascension and what happened AFTER the resurrection.


CLEARLY in this case my "position" is a very quick and easy way to explain it all: it didn't happen. I'm curious how your rubric salvages the story here.

Once again, you are trying to change the subject away from your original assertion.

Your Claim: You insinuated the resurrection story may have been fabricated by Christian authors thinking they could get away with it because they were writing decades after the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were dead.

That claim was based on a false premise. The apostles Peter, James, Andrew were alive and were leaders in the Christian community when Paul was teaching about the resurrection and possibly during when Mark was writing about the resurrection.

You haven't explained why the apostles did not protest that Paul and Mark were teaching about a resurrection

The disagreement between Paul and the Jerusalem Church had nothing to do with the belief in the resurrection. It had to do with the appropriateness of Paul taking his ministry to the gentiles. That diversion is irrelevant to your claim.


Cherry picking one single quote from Luke, which has been translated into modern colloquial English is not something you can compare to the resurrection which appears in all four gospels, many of the canonical epistles, and throughout the apocrypha. It is the most widely reported story in Christianity. A basic principle of literary criticism and historical analysis is that multiple attestations of an event across numerous independent sources is likely to be more reliable than a single quote from Luke or from one or two sources. "And he vanished from their sight" is hard to interpret, we are only looking a the quote from the 21st century perspective of colloquial english.

But that has nothing to do with the claim you made.

No, i don't think Jesus is a scam artist. I believe it is at least remotely possible he had a near death experience, and appeared later to the apostles in what must have seemed miraculous to them.

Your theory requires the apostles, their followers, all the second generation and gospel-era writers to have engaged in a coordinated conspiracy and maintained it for decades without anyone every revealing the conspiracy.

 

[domer76]

Good point, there wasn't a canon until centuries after the apostles and early Christians.

None of the Papal bulls, writings of the church fathers, or ecumenical councils are "canonical" either. But they carry equal weight with Catholics. It's only Protestants who consider biblical text the one and only authority.

If Jesus had just died on the cross and been entombed or buried, that would have been the end of that. His death would have proved he wasn't the Messiah. His followers would have dispersed and nothing more would have been heard of him.

If Paul and Mark had fabricated the resurrection account, it's curious thee still living witnesses to Jesus' ministry didn't protest.

The fact that Jesus' brother James became the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem after the crucifixion suggests to me something unusual happened to rally the apostles after the crucifixion. I look for sensible and rational explanations, and for me both miracles and coordinated conspiracies are problematic

When he died on the cross, his followers said, “WTF? THAT wasn’t supposed to happen with a messiah! Fuck! NOW what do we do? OK, let’s make up a different story!”

“Yeah! Yeah! That’s the ticket! Yeah!”

 

[domer76]

Once again, you are trying to change the subject away from your original assertion.

Your Claim: You insinuated the resurrection story may have been fabricated by Christian authors thinking they could get away with it because they were writing decades after the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were dead.

That claim was based on a false premise. The apostles Peter, James, Andrew were alive and were leaders in the Christian community when Paul was teaching about the resurrection and possibly during when Mark was writing about the resurrection.

You haven't explained why the apostles did not protest that Paul and Mark were teaching about a resurrection

The disagreement between Paul and the Jerusalem Church had nothing to do with the belief in the resurrection. It had to do with the appropriateness of Paul taking his ministry to the gentiles. That diversion is irrelevant to your claim.


Cherry picking one single quote from Luke, which has been translated into modern colloquial English is not something you can compare to the resurrection which appears in all four gospels, many of the canonical epistles, and throughout the apocrypha. It is the most widely reported story in Christianity. A basic principle of literary criticism and historical analysis is that multiple attestations of an event across numerous independent sources is likely to be more reliable than a single quote from Luke or from one or two sources. "And he vanished from their sight" is hard to interpret, we are only looking a the quote from the 21st century perspective of colloquial english.

But that has nothing to do with the claim you made.

No, i don't think Jesus is a scam artist. I believe it is at least remotely possible he had a near death experience, and appeared later to the apostles in what must have seemed miraculous to them.

Your theory requires the apostles, their followers, all the second generation and gospel-era writers to have engaged in a coordinated conspiracy and maintained it for decades without anyone every revealing the conspiracy.

None of the disciples were literate. There’s a good chance that they didn’t know anybody literate, either. As far as a conspiracy, I’ve never heard that Mark, Matthew or Luke knew each other. Nor that they had ever met or talked with any of the disciples.

As far as the near death experience scenario, it’s absurd beyond description.

 

[Cypress]

Near Death Experience is a 20th century medical concept.

None of the disciples were literate. There’s a good chance that they didn’t know anybody literate, either. As far as a conspiracy, I’ve never heard that Mark, Matthew or Luke knew each other. Nor that they had ever met or talked with any of the disciples.

As far as the near death experience scenario, it’s absurd beyond description.

Doesn't matter if they were literate, if they apostles and evangelists were all talking to each other.. The apostles Peter and James knew Paul, who was highly literate, and they surely knew he was teaching the resurrection story in his ministry.

I understand that the only story some people are willing to entertain is a coordinated conspiracy engineered by the apostles, the evangelists who knew them, and the second generation of Christian writers. A conspiracy that remained a tightly guarded secret for decades.

I wouldn't expect peasants and fishermen to be able to pull of a conspiracy and maintain it like that.

But I fully accept that the Jesus story of the New Testament is regarded by many as a deception and fabrication. The Resurrection might be a clever fabrication

My theory doesn't involve either conspiracies or miracles, but I also said it might only be remotely possible

 

[Into the Night]

Paul never met Jesus.

Paul did meet Jesus, as described in Acts.

 

[Into the Night]

A message that was contrary to the OT God of vengeance and obedience.

Agreed it spread due to both factors. IMO, like democracy in the modern world over authoritarianism, Christianity spread because it was a more enlightened message than what others were pushing.

There is no democracy in the modern world (other than a few small encampments, temporarily).

 

[Into the Night]

QED on the faux Christian tolerance.

Christianity isn't tolerance, Sybil.

 

[domer76]

Near Death Experience is a 20th century medical concept.

Doesn't matter if they were literate, if they apostles and evangelists were all talking to each other.. The apostles Peter and James knew Paul, who was highly literate, and they surely knew he was teaching the resurrection story in his ministry.

I understand that the only story some people are willing to entertain is a coordinated conspiracy engineered by the apostles, the evangelists who knew them, and the second generation of Christian writers. A conspiracy that remained a tightly guarded secret for decades.

I wouldn't expect peasants and fishermen to be able to pull of a conspiracy and maintain it like that.

But I fully accept that the Jesus story of the New Testament is regarded by many as a deception and fabrication. The Resurrection might be a clever fabrication

My theory doesn't involve either conspiracies or miracles, but I also said it might only be remotely possible

Deception and fabrication are your terms, not mine. These NT books are merely written renditions of the oral narrative that was finally recorded decades after his death. In Greek, no less. Not Hebrew or Aramaic.

The synoptic gospels and John, not Paul, all have significant differences. Not unusual, nor unexpected when one has a different audience or agenda they wish to pursue in the game of telephone.

Paul had a completely different agenda and completely changed the intent and direction of Christ’s message. That’s whether he knew James or Peter.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It's claims such as yours which keeps me interested in you, Perry. The layer of egotism over insincere claims with a hard ball of insecurities at the core are truly fascinating.

Indeed.

And the long bullshit story he offered ended with, "...simply failing to believe in."

He is saying that "failing to believe in" (a simplistic rendering of "I do not blindly guess there are any gods") is enough to use the descriptor "atheist" rather than "agnostic."

And he trots out that silly "lack of consistency" argument against "agnosticism."

Okay, I guess it is better to use that rationalization than to acknowledge that using the descriptor "agnostic" makes a much better result in having gone throught the epiphany he supposedly experienced...than does using atheist.

Fact is, I have little doubt he went through the experience, because I went through an almost identical experience myself. But I was truthful enough to end up with an agnostic take...rather than trying to twist atheism to fit my result. I suspect he is using "atheism" because of the same reason so many other people who use atheism do. They seem to think it makes them seem strong.

It doesn't.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Actually if you were honest you'd see I'm the ONLY one on here who explicitly states time and again I am without perfect knowledge. Hence my position which ironically you seem to hate precisely because it is honest about it's limitations.

Strange.

Horse shit!

 

[Cypress]

Deception and fabrication are your terms, not mine. These NT books are merely written renditions of the oral narrative that was finally recorded decades after his death. In Greek, no less. Not Hebrew or Aramaic.

The synoptic gospels and John, not Paul, all have significant differences. Not unusual, nor unexpected when one has a different audience or agenda they wish to pursue in the game of telephone.

Paul had a completely different agenda and completely changed the intent and direction of Christ’s message. That’s whether he knew James or Peter.

Your statement that the gospels have inconsistencies and contradictions just proves there wasn't a coordinated conspiracy. Otherwise they would gotten their stories straight.

The disagreement between Paul and Peter and the apostolic Jerusalem church has nothing to do with what I have been discussing: the resurrection story. Their disagreement had to do with the ministry to the gentiles and whether converts had to conform to laws of Torah.

It's fine if you want to believe the stories of the NT are lies and fabrications. There certainly is a lot of embellishment, myth, and literary licence in it.


The claim I responded to was that the resurrection story supposedly only appeared many decades later, conveniently after all the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were dead.

That premise is false. The first mention of the resurrection that still exists comes from around 52 C.E. in 1 Corinthians. That's only two decades after the crucifixion, and when some of the apostles were still alive and fully aware of Paul's ministry.

And Paul states that he first heard this Christian creed of the resurrection earlier from elders in the Church. Which likely means the apostolic community in Jerusalem, aka from the apostles Peter and James, et al.

That means the resurrection story most likely goes back to the earliest years of the apostolic community in Jerusalem.

I think there are only a few possibilities to explain the antiquity of the resurrection story:

1) a miracle (unlikely it seems to me)
2) a coordinated conspiracy by the apostolic church to lie and deceive about the resurrection.
3) Some other rational explanation for why the apostles had the oral tradition of the resurrection story

 

[domer76]

Your statement that the gospels have inconsistencies and contradictions just proves there wasn't a coordinated conspiracy. Otherwise they would gotten their stories straight.

The disagreement between Paul and Peter and the apostolic Jerusalem church has nothing to do with what I have been discussing: the resurrection story. Their disagreement had to do with the ministry to the gentiles and whether converts had to conform to laws of Torah.

It's fine if you want to believe the stories of the NT are lies and fabrications. There certainly is a lot of embellishment, myth, and literary licence in it.


The claim I responded to was that the resurrection story supposedly only appeared many decades later, conveniently after all the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were dead.

That premise is false. The first mention of the resurrection that still exists comes from around 52 C.E. in 1 Corinthians. That's only two decades after the crucifixion, and when some of the apostles were still alive and fully aware of Paul's ministry.

And Paul states that he first heard this Christian creed of the resurrection earlier from elders in the Church. Which likely means the apostolic community in Jerusalem, aka from the apostles Peter and James, et al.

That means the resurrection story most likely goes back to the earliest years of the apostolic community in Jerusalem.

I think there are only a few possibilities to explain the antiquity of the resurrection story:

1) a miracle (unlikely it seems to me)
2) a coordinated conspiracy by the apostolic church to lie and deceive about the resurrection.
3) Some other rational explanation for why the apostles had the oral tradition of the resurrection story

I never said there was a coordinated conspiracy. Those are your words.

The NT are stories. Nothing more. Nothing less. In those stories are additions and subtractions. One could call the additions embellishments or fabrications is your choice. At the tomb, was it an angel or a young man?

I also never said all the disciples were dead. And yeah, Paul HEARD the stories. So, which of the several renditions is correct?

 

[Kafka]

Your Claim: You insinuated the resurrection story may have been fabricated by Christian authors thinking they could get away with it because they were writing decades after the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were dead.

Here is where you went wrong and you were told why this was wrong multiple times. At this point it appears you only wish to mischaracterize my position and lie about it repeatedly.

I wish you could discuss this honestly. I really do.

 

[Kafka]

I never said there was a coordinated conspiracy. Those are your words.

This is Cypress standard "strawman". He will continue to lie about your position and mischaracterize it.

He is incapable of discussing a topic without attacking the other poster. (Unless it's Doc Douche....then he will trade stories about how smart he is)

 

[Kafka]

Yes, I did, Perry. Why did you dodge the question?

Didn't dodge the question. I addressed it. You didn't like it because you hadn't thought that deeply about your question.

 

[Kafka]

Paul did meet Jesus, as described in Acts.

I dreamt I met Elvis. Did I meet Elvis?

 

[Litmus]

I thought you claimed to have read the bible cover to cover?

Jesus' brother James is in Acts, and is attested to by the premminent Jewish historian Josephus. James the Just was the leader of the early Christian moment after Jesus was crucified. Tradition holds that the Epistle of James is authored by Jesus' brother.

As you hopefully know the gospels aren't the only Christian writings, and it's likely none of the apostles wrote any of the apostles.

You haven't explained a problem with your theory, which is that if the Gospel era authors fabricated the resurrection story decades after eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry were dead, then why weren't their fabrications corrected by the apostles Peter, James, and Andrew who lived long enough to be aware of Paul's Story of the resurrection, and probably Mark's too

you couldn't just kick people off Twitter back then.

 

[Cypress]

Here is where you went wrong and you were told why this was wrong multiple times. At this point it appears you only wish to mischaracterize my position and lie about it repeatedly.

I wish you could discuss this honestly. I really do.

You made a huge deal about how the resurrection story was written many decades later after the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were dead.

On this thread, you have now learned that the resurrection story very likely goes back to the earliest days of the apostolic church in Jerusalem, which was led by Peter and Jesus' brother James.

 

[domer76]

This is Cypress standard "strawman". He will continue to lie about your position and mischaracterize it.

He is incapable of discussing a topic without attacking the other poster. (Unless it's Doc Douche....then he will trade stories about how smart he is)

Actually, I find him to be a reasonable and intellectually curious guy. It seems we have gotten off the tracks somehow on this one.

 

[Kafka]

You made a huge deal about how the resurrection story was written many decades later after the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were dead.

But you keep making it into some grand conspiracy and lies. That isn't my hypothesis at all. You keep casting my point in the most DARK and EVIL manner so you can attack it.

But that was never my point. Yet you persist in the mischaracterization.

I honestly don't understand why you are incapable of discussing something without attacking me.