I have read your posts and have been fairly impressed at your work on the biggest historical issue probably ever. However, I cant help but feel like there are many things you did not cover.
Primaraly- I am interested in how christianity could have survived had the markan resurrection story been fabrication. FTR I do NOT think that the disciples died because of a belief in an empty tomb- they died because they could of sworn they had visions of Jesus. I also don't think that if they were shown evidence that contradicted their claims, they would change there minds. So I don't buy the "they could have presented the body" routine.
HOWEVER- this still causes me to question just WHY the story was created- and more importantly, why female witnesses? Do you think that the ancient christians did this to justify their visions/hallucinations? If so, than do you believe it is possible that the disciples lied about the empty tomb during this propaganda war? I mean, we have other instances of clear lying for jesus in there, but is the case that they lied good enough? What happened along the way that changed the belief in a hallucination into a belief in physical ressurection. I just don't see propaganda wars being enough to make early followers outright lie. And, if christianity was as well preserved as "scripting jesus" claims, than surely, if the people believed in a spiritual ressurection, the gospels would state that they believed in spiritual ressurection- not physical ressurection- because they would be more interested in truth than anything else.
"this still causes me to question just WHY the story was created- and more importantly, why female witnesses?"
Do you mean the resurrection story or empty tomb story? I'll try and answer both.
I think that the first Christians sincerely believed that Jesus had been resurrected at least in some sense, and that they may have had really powerful hallucinations which caused them to believe this. This is not the only explanation, but it is the most plausible overall.
The empty tomb, on the other hand, might be a piece of propaganda, or symbolism, or legend. And if it is, it very probably did not originate with the first disciples. The first gospel, as best we can tell, was written 40 years after Jesus' death, and Paul's letters, written only 20 years after Jesus' death, don't mention an empty tomb. So, all in all, it could have been a kind of urban legend or piece of gossip that originated from Christians living decades after Jesus' death, who were not part of the original 12.
Now, if that is the way the story originated, was it lie? Possibly, possibly not. In my own life I've seen plenty of reason to believe that falsehoods can arise through bad memory, confusion, etc. That aside, it is also very plausible that the empty tomb story simply grew up as a way to answer charges that the Christians had seen nothing more than a ghost.
"What happened along the way that changed the belief in a hallucination into a belief in physical ressurection?"
I don't think the Christians ever BELIEVED they had seen a hallucination. I think they hallucinated and mistook their hallucination for a resurrected Jesus. Why would that happen? Because hallucinations can be incredibly vivid and involve touch. Because recent evidence (see "The Vision of Gabriel" and "Hazon Gabriel") indicate that belief in a dying and resurrecting messiah existed prior to Jesus.
"I just don't see propaganda wars being enough to make early followers outright lie."
I don't think that we have to hypothesize that the twelve disciples (or anyone who joined Christianity right as it began) lied. It's the Christians from 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 years later. And I do think they would lie to save face. With any other group of people we would seriously consider the possibility of lies or fabrication to protect their beliefs.
2 comments:
I have read your posts and have been fairly impressed at your work on the biggest historical issue probably ever. However, I cant help but feel like there are many things you did not cover.
Primaraly- I am interested in how christianity could have survived had the markan resurrection story been fabrication. FTR I do NOT think that the disciples died because of a belief in an empty tomb- they died because they could of sworn they had visions of Jesus. I also don't think that if they were shown evidence that contradicted their claims, they would change there minds. So I don't buy the "they could have presented the body" routine.
HOWEVER- this still causes me to question just WHY the story was created- and more importantly, why female witnesses? Do you think that the ancient christians did this to justify their visions/hallucinations? If so, than do you believe it is possible that the disciples lied about the empty tomb during this propaganda war? I mean, we have other instances of clear lying for jesus in there, but is the case that they lied good enough? What happened along the way that changed the belief in a hallucination into a belief in physical ressurection. I just don't see propaganda wars being enough to make early followers outright lie. And, if christianity was as well preserved as "scripting jesus" claims, than surely, if the people believed in a spiritual ressurection, the gospels would state that they believed in spiritual ressurection- not physical ressurection- because they would be more interested in truth than anything else.
If you could respond at
andy.scicluna@hotmail.com
it would be really great. Thanks.
Hi Andy,
"this still causes me to question just WHY the story was created- and more importantly, why female witnesses?"
Do you mean the resurrection story or empty tomb story? I'll try and answer both.
I think that the first Christians sincerely believed that Jesus had been resurrected at least in some sense, and that they may have had really powerful hallucinations which caused them to believe this. This is not the only explanation, but it is the most plausible overall.
The empty tomb, on the other hand, might be a piece of propaganda, or symbolism, or legend. And if it is, it very probably did not originate with the first disciples. The first gospel, as best we can tell, was written 40 years after Jesus' death, and Paul's letters, written only 20 years after Jesus' death, don't mention an empty tomb. So, all in all, it could have been a kind of urban legend or piece of gossip that originated from Christians living decades after Jesus' death, who were not part of the original 12.
Now, if that is the way the story originated, was it lie? Possibly, possibly not. In my own life I've seen plenty of reason to believe that falsehoods can arise through bad memory, confusion, etc. That aside, it is also very plausible that the empty tomb story simply grew up as a way to answer charges that the Christians had seen nothing more than a ghost.
"What happened along the way that changed the belief in a hallucination into a belief in physical ressurection?"
I don't think the Christians ever BELIEVED they had seen a hallucination. I think they hallucinated and mistook their hallucination for a resurrected Jesus. Why would that happen? Because hallucinations can be incredibly vivid and involve touch. Because recent evidence (see "The Vision of Gabriel" and "Hazon Gabriel") indicate that belief in a dying and resurrecting messiah existed prior to Jesus.
"I just don't see propaganda wars being enough to make early followers outright lie."
I don't think that we have to hypothesize that the twelve disciples (or anyone who joined Christianity right as it began) lied. It's the Christians from 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 years later. And I do think they would lie to save face. With any other group of people we would seriously consider the possibility of lies or fabrication to protect their beliefs.
Post a Comment