New Testament scholarship

[Dutch Uncle]

Or, they were visions, like the ones Theresa claimed to have of the Virgin Mary. These people for whatever reason think these visions are real. The are real to them.

The followers of Jesus aren’t the first or the last to experience what they think are supernatural experiences, the burning bush, the talking ass, there are many throughout ancient literature. Throughout history people have testified to miracles.

There are other godman stories, Jesus’ is just one amongst many.

Schizophrenia existed even before RFK Jr. No doubt many people had "visions". Julius Caesar was thought to be divine because he had "the falling sickness", now known as epilepsy. Although, as the link below notes, it could have been mini-strokes.

Agreed on many "godman" stories. Like stories about Jesses James or Billy the Kid, I suspect most are highly inflated post-mortem albeit based upon factual history. Still, due to the four different accounts in the Gospels, even though they vary a bit, it seems there was a physical manifestation based upon both the accounts themselves and the impact it had upon others.

Julius Caesar Suffered from Strokes, Not Epilepsy, New Study Says | HISTORY

A new examination of Julius Caesar’s health has found that the Roman dictator may have suffered from a series “mini‑strokes” rather than epilepsy.

www.history.com

The new study is not the first attempt to offer an alternative explanation for Caesar’s illness. In the past, researchers have proposed everything from migraines, malaria and Ménière’s disease to a parasitic infection, a brain tumor and even syphilis. Interestingly, Caesar may have had good reason to present himself as epileptic. The ailment was well known to the Romans, having been described by the famed Greek physician Hippocrates in a 400 B.C. treatise entitled “On the Sacred Disease.” Many in ancient Rome believed the seizures and fits caused by epilepsy to be a sign of divine possession, and it was often associated with the powerful. According to Galassi and Ashrafian, Caesar may have played up evidence of his epilepsy as a means of bolstering his public profile.

 

[Phantasmal]

Okay, so this is back to the hallucinations theory. You might be right. Its possible. But that doesn't work for me. They could have just checked the tomb for Jesus' body to confirm what they were seeing.

There were many apocalyptic movements in ancient Judea who were led by purported messiahs who were later killed. In every case, the movement disintegrated, or they found a new leader. The Jesus movement is the only one who claimed their leader came back after death. That is totally out of context for Jewish apocalyptic movements of late antiquity.

Scholars have identified several reported instances of people surviving Roman crucifixion, and people being mistaken for dead in Roman antiquity.

I know the Jesus near death experience is a radical theory most people haven't heard of or considered. It could be totally wrong. But to me it is more explanatory than mass hallucinations.

The whole tomb story could be a fabrication. Literary symbolism.

Bart Ehrman contends that if you would ask Paul if the tomb was empty, he would say yes, even if the physical body was still there because of his belief and teachings were focused on the spiritual resurrection.

Proto Gnosticism.

 

[Cypress]

The whole tomb story could be a fabrication. Literary symbolism.

Bart Ehrman contends that if you would ask Paul if the tomb was empty, he would say yes, even if the physical body was still there because of his belief and teachings were focused on the spiritual resurrection.

Thanks for debating me on this thread.

It's not likely first century male writers would have written about women being witnesses to an empty tomb. That's why the account seems authentic. In a patriarchal society like ancient Judea, the testimony of women was basically worthless.

I don't think it's a a strong, compelling explanation to say everyone involved with writing the New Testament was lying or hallucinating. The literary style is very different than the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible is a compilation of poetry, allegory, metaphor, and re-imagined Babylonian mythology based on stories that go back deep into the Bronze Age.

The New Testament authors were Greek Hellenized Jews who knew about classical Greek contributions to historical writing and philosophy. The NT as a literary genre is far more consistent with a quasi-historical and instructional narrative, even though it is obviously peppered with parable and allegory.

I've never heard Ehrman say that the disciples believed only that Jesus was resurrected spiritually. It would be interesting to see any peer reviewed paper's he wrote that said that

 

[Phantasmal]

It's not likely first century male writers would have written about women being witnesses to an empty tomb. That's why the account seems authentic. In a patriarchal society like ancient Judea, the testimony of women was basically worthless.

I don't think it's a a strong, compelling explanation to say everyone involved with writing the New Testament was lying or hallucinating. The literary style is very different than the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible is a compilation of poetry, allegory, metaphor, and re-imagined Babyloniansm mythology based on stories that go back deep into the Bronze Age.

The New Testament authors were Greek Hellenized Jews who knew about classical Greek contributions to historical writing and philosophy. The NT as a literary genre is far more consistent with a quasi-historical and instructional narrative, even though it is obviously peppered with parable and allegory its allegorical, just like the

It's not likely first century male writers would have written about women being witnesses to an empty tomb. That's why the account seems authentic. In a patriarchal society like ancient Judea, the testimony of women was basically worthless.

I don't think it's a a strong, compelling explanation to say everyone involved with writing the New Testament was lying or hallucinating. The literary style is very different than the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible is a compilation of poetry, allegory, metaphor, and re-imagined Babyloniansm mythology based on stories that go back deep into the Bronze Age.

The New Testament authors were Greek Hellenized Jews who knew about classical Greek contributions to historical writing and philosophy. The NT as a literary genre is far more consistent with a quasi-historical and instructional narrative, even though it is obviously peppered with parable and allegory

Thanks for debating me on this thread.

It's not likely first century male writers would have written about women being witnesses to an empty tomb. That's why the account seems authentic. In a patriarchal society like ancient Judea, the testimony of women was basically worthless.

I don't think it's a a strong, compelling explanation to say everyone involved with writing the New Testament was lying or hallucinating. The literary style is very different than the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible is a compilation of poetry, allegory, metaphor, and re-imagined Babylonian mythology based on stories that go back deep into the Bronze Age.

The New Testament authors were Greek Hellenized Jews who knew about classical Greek contributions to historical writing and philosophy. The NT as a literary genre is far more consistent with a quasi-historical and instructional narrative, even though it is obviously peppered with parable and allegory.

I've never heard Ehrman say that the disciples believed only that Jesus was resurrected spiritually. It would be interesting to see any peer reviewed paper's he wrote that said that

The resurrection to me is on the same level of Mary having an immaculate conception. It’s a nice story, but it’s not fact.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The resurrection to me is on the same level of Mary having an immaculate conception. It’s a nice story, but it’s not fact.

If referencing rising from the dead or divinity, I agree, but still hold that it's possible for someone to survive a 6-hour crucifixion although I think walking around after it is very unlikely.

 

[Cypress]

The resurrection to me is on the same level of Mary having an immaculate conception. It’s a nice story, but it’s not fact.

The virgin birth is not well attested at all. It is only mentioned briefly in two Gospels Luke and Matthew. And that story comes in late; Luke and Matthew are only written in the 80s AD. That is a little suspect.

It's never mentioned by the earliest sources Paul and Mark, or in the other independent source John

The Resurrection is universally attested to by Paul, Mark, John, Luke, Mathew, and the testimony goes back to the earliest days of the church.

By the standards of scholarly historical criteria, the belief in the resurrection passes with flying colors. It can't really be compared to the virgin birth.

 

[Phantasmal]

If referencing rising from the dead or divinity, I agree, but still hold that it's possible for someone to survive a 6-hour crucifixion although I think walking around after it is very unlikely.

Scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure.

I stop there, too.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The virgin birth is not well attested at all. It is only mentioned briefly in two Gospels Luke and Matthew. And that story comes in late; Luke and Matthew are only written in the 80s AD. That is a little suspect.

It's never mentioned by the earliest sources Paul and Mark, or in the other independent source John

The Resurrection is universally attested to by Paul, Mark, John, Luke, Mathew, and the testimony goes back to the earliest days of the church.

By the standards of scholarly historical criteria, the belief in the resurrection passes with flying colors. It can't really be compared to the virgin birth.

Agreed on the differences between the "virgin birth", which does reek of fabrication, versus the "Resurrection". The entire modern Christian faith is based upon Jesus rising from the dead thus proving he's the Messiah. If he'd died, like thousands of other wisemen, he'd only be remembered as a unique philosopher in Judea 2000 years ago.

Ergo, I believe in the Resurrection based upon the results. The ripples in a pond theory; I may not understand what fell into the water, but the ripples exist so something most certainly did fall. Since there's no proof of supernatural phenomena within our Universe, then a physical explanation remains the only possibility. Meaning he survived long enough to make it a memorable moment for those around him.

On a side note, Michael Moorcock wrote an interesting book about a time traveler going back to witness the last week of Jesus. "Behold the Man", novella 1966, book 1969. I read the book in 1970ish in 7th grade. It was one of the contributing factors to me going full atheist by 16 and the subsequent religious intervention that followed. LOL

Spoiler: short synopsis

The time traveler looks for Mary and Joseph with the son Jesus. He finds Mary is a whore and Jesus is a retard. He goes on to fulfill the historical role up to and including being nailed to a cross. There was no resurrection.

Behold the Man (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Phantasmal]

The virgin birth is not well attested at all. It is only mentioned briefly in two Gospels Luke and Matthew. And that story comes in late; Luke and Matthew are only written in the 80s AD. That is a little suspect.

It's never mentioned by the earliest sources Paul and Mark, or in the other independent source John

The Resurrection is universally attested to by Paul, Mark, John, Luke, Mathew, and the testimony goes back to the earliest days of the church.

By the standards of scholarly historical criteria, the belief in the resurrection passes with flying colors. It can't really be compared to the virgin birth.

The scholars I read say that the followers of Jesus believe he had been resurrected.

The only sources of Jesus resurrected are followers of Jesus, there are no outside sources that witnessed it. It’s why I do not find the evidence of the resurrection to be credible.

 

[Phantasmal]

Agreed on the differences between the "virgin birth", which does reek of fabrication, versus the "Resurrection". The entire modern Christian faith is based upon Jesus rising from the dead thus proving he's the Messiah. If he'd died, like thousands of other wisemen, he'd only be remembered as a unique philosopher in Judea 2000 years ago.

Ergo, I believe in the Resurrection based upon the results. The ripples in a pond theory; I may not understand what fell into the water, but the ripples exist so something most certainly did fall. Since there's no proof of supernatural phenomena within our Universe, then a physical explanation remains the only possibility. Meaning he survived long enough to make it a memorable moment for those around him.

On a side note, Michael Moorcock wrote an interesting book about a time traveler going back to witness the last week of Jesus. "Behold the Man", novella 1966, book 1969. I read the book in 1970ish in 7th grade. It was one of the contributing factors to me going full atheist by 16 and the subsequent religious intervention that followed. LOL

Spoiler: short synopsis

The time traveler looks for Mary and Joseph with the son Jesus. He finds Mary is a whore and Jesus is a retard. He goes on to fulfill the historical role up to and including being nailed to a cross. There was no resurrection.

Behold the Man (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or they made it all up, the witnesses, the empty tomb, all of it and convinced a bunch of desperate people under Roman rule that it was all true.

It’s easy to see how that happens living in the times we do and how it would benefit those intinerant preachers to preach of a divine being and the promises of eternal life and an end to their suffering.

I get it now how people can fall for a well fabricated lie.

 

[Phantasmal]

Modern example of something fabricated and sold as a true religion is Mormonism.

Try to convince a Mormon it’s not real.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Or they made it all up, the witnesses, the empty tomb, all of it and convinced a bunch of desperate people under Roman rule that it was all true.

It’s easy to see how that happens living in the times we do and how it would benefit those intinerant preachers to preach of a divine being and the promises of eternal life and an end to their suffering.

I get it now how people can fall for a well fabricated lie.

L. Ron Hubbard fabricated a religion but, except for a lot of Hollyweirdos, not many people follow it. The fact this new religion caught on was due to true believers and true believers don't fabricate those beliefs.

Another factor that is better documented than a rebellious carpenter/teacher is the execution of the Apostles. Peter's inverted crucifixion being the most notorious.

What Happened to the 12 Disciples and Apostles of Jesus?

Learn what happened to the 12 apostles after the death of Jesus - how each of the apostles spread out to minister and evangelize and how many of the apostles died for their faith.

www.christianity.com

Apostles in the New Testament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of the Twelve Apostles to hold the title after Matthias' selection, Christian tradition has generally passed down that all of the Twelve Apostles except John were martyred....

....According to the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon, early Christians (second half of the second century and first half of the third century) believed that only Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee, were martyred. The remainder, or even all, of the claims of martyred apostles do not rely upon historical or biblical evidence, but only on late legends.

 

[Cypress]

The scholars I read say that the followers of Jesus believe he had been resurrected.

The only sources of Jesus resurrected are followers of Jesus, there are no outside sources that witnessed it. It’s why I do not find the evidence of the resurrection to be credible.

You are right.

There are only Greek sources that directly attest to Socrates, only Hebrew sources that attest to King David, only Confucian sources that attest to Confucius, and only Christian sources that attest to the resurrection of Jesus

That doesn't bother me, especially considering how many independent Christian sources attest to belief in seeing Jesus after the crucifixion.

Yes, it's possible they are all lying or hallucinating, butI don't think most reputable scholars hang their hat on that theory. These days, most skeptical scholars tend to be agnostic or uncommitted about the reasons why early Christians believed they saw Jesus after the resurrection.

Again, having direct eyewitness testimony from ancient sources is extremely rare. And if that were our requirement, we would have to shut down and abandon the study of ancient history. From the perspective of ancient history, Jesus is arguably the most well attested Jew of Roman antiquity.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on the differences between the "virgin birth", which does reek of fabrication, versus the "Resurrection". The entire modern Christian faith is based upon Jesus rising from the dead thus proving he's the Messiah. If he'd died, like thousands of other wisemen, he'd only be remembered as a unique philosopher in Judea 2000 years ago.

Ergo, I believe in the Resurrection based upon the results. The ripples in a pond theory; I may not understand what fell into the water, but the ripples exist so something most certainly did fall. Since there's no proof of supernatural phenomena within our Universe, then a physical explanation remains the only possibility. Meaning he survived long enough to make it a memorable moment for those around him.

On a side note, Michael Moorcock wrote an interesting book about a time traveler going back to witness the last week of Jesus. "Behold the Man", novella 1966, book 1969. I read the book in 1970ish in 7th grade. It was one of the contributing factors to me going full atheist by 16 and the subsequent religious intervention that followed. LOL

Spoiler: short synopsis

The time traveler looks for Mary and Joseph with the son Jesus. He finds Mary is a whore and Jesus is a retard. He goes on to fulfill the historical role up to and including being nailed to a cross. There was no resurrection.

Behold the Man (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was listening to the prominent atheist podcaster Alex O'connor last night, and he admitted something weird happened on Passover 33 AD that we do not have any great explanations for. He did admit that claims the disciples and evangelists were all lying or hallucinating about seeing Jesus after Passover was a fairly weak argument.

 

[Hume]

I was listening to the prominent atheist podcaster Alex O'connor last night, and he admitted something weird happened on Passover 33 AD that we do not have any great explanations for. He did admit that claims the disciples and evangelists were all lying or hallucinating about seeing Jesus after Passover was a fairly weak argument.

Why are you obsessed with atheists?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why are you obsessed with atheists?

I'm me everyone is obsessed with, dear. I used to be an atheist but grew out of it. You will too when you reach your 30s+.

 

[Hume]

I'm me everyone is obsessed with, dear. I used to be an atheist but grew out of it. You will too when you reach your 30s+.

fuck you hate troll

 

[Dutch Uncle]

fuck you hate troll

See? That's how I know, Ms. Hume.

 

[Hume]

See? That's how I know, Ms. Hume.

fuck you hate troll

And back to ignore.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

fuck you hate troll

And back to ignore.

Sad.