Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christians claim that the resurrection is "the best explanation for the rise of the early church." While I obviously don't believe that, you have to admit it is somewhat surprising that a religion was able to spring up claiming that Jesus was bodily resurrected, when it should have been easy to prove the contrary.
As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that the earliest Christians did not believe in the resurrection. Additionally, I find the typical secular explanations (the "swoon" theory (Jesus wasn't really dead), the disciples stole the body, etc.) for the resurrection narratives to be pretty poor.
Of course, all this assumes Jesus was a historical person and he was actually buried in a tomb -- both huge unfounded assumptions, I know.
Still, let's assume hypothetically that Jesus and the tomb story are historical. Here's what I think may have happened:
1) Jesus was crucified, much as the gospels describe.
2) Jesus was buried in the tomb, much as the Bible says
3) The disciples were discouraged, much like what was listed in the gospel accounts.
4) Some Jewish zealot or activist with access to Jesus' tomb, someone who knew the Messiah hype surrounding Jesus and wanted to spark a Jewish independence revolution against the Roman Empire, stole the body of Jesus, hoping to spark resurrection rumors and nationalistic fervor.
5) The disciples return to the tomb a few days later, find it empty, and deduce that Jesus was resurrected.
6) They write the gospels, adding mythological elements to embellish the story.
I think this eliminates the problem of Jesus' disciples dying for something they knew to be a lie (assuming they stole the body), or the improbable event of the Romans botching a crucifixion. It also eliminates the supernatural explanation of Jesus actually rising from the dead (which I believe to be impossible).
What do you think about my idea?
Last edited by northstar22; 10-13-2011 at 12:36 AM..
Why would there be angels telling the girls not to look for "the living among the dead" huh huh? surely not because they were part of the zealots that burned the body to trick the pagans whom so easily change their religion???
i think this is speculation about what happened. i wasnt there neither were you but apparently somebody a jew, had a totally different take on eye for an eye bloodthirsty mind set of the mideast. he changed the world. if we had truly followed him as a nation, we would have gotten out of the invasion biz a long long time ago.
btw jesus teaching and practice was far more like a buddist than a southern baptist.
Just as nonsensical as the other "explanations", in my opinion. Why would all of these people assume Jesus was resurrected just because his body was missing? One or two, I could perhaps buy, but all of them? And it still makes all of the post-resurrection appearances a lie on the apostles' part, meaning it doesn't remove the problem of them "dying for what they knew was a lie". Unless they were all hallucinations, but then you have the problem with that many people all hallucinating the same thing simultaneously.
The way I see it, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then the only logical explanation is that the Gospel writers, or their sources, were knowingly lying. If they were lying, then they knew that Jesus was wrong and had nothing to offer them, but were willing to risk their lives for Jesus anyways. Again, I could perhaps buy it if we were talking about one or two people, but there had to have been a lot of people in a position to know that Jesus wasn't resurrected, but were still willing to die for him.
People talk about the resurrection being an "extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence", but the opposing theories, including this one, are also extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. The problem is, they have no evidence at all. Not even Jesus' opponents were claiming that any of these things happened. When we're dealing with competing extraordinary claims, with no "mundane claim" being offered, then I'll go with the extraordinary claim that at least has SOME evidence to support it, that is at least being claimed by people who were around at the time and in a position to know what happened. I just don't see any evidence of "knowingly lying" in early Christianity.
Some years ago there was a book called The Passover Plot (which did not please the Church, at all). It set forth the concept that everything surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection had been pre-arranged, probably by Jesus of Nazareth himself, who recognized that people in future years would look back on those events and draw the conclusions that he wanted them to draw. If so, incidentally, that would have made him one of the most amazing men who ever lived.
Unfortunately, it appears that something went wrong and instead of the miraculous reappearance, he died...setting up what became the last two thousand years of history.
The book is absolutely fascinating reading, whether you agree with its premise or not.
Why bother with a body... or even the man himself. The gospels were first written decades after the fact and story has only gotten larger over the centuries. If we had a time machine and could go back, I doubt very much that we'd find anyone who evern remotely resembles Jesus of the bible.
Christians claim that the resurrection is "the best explanation for the rise of the early church." While I obviously don't believe that, you have to admit it is somewhat surprising that a religion was able to spring up claiming that Jesus was bodily resurrected, when it should have been easy to prove the contrary.
As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that the earliest Christians did not believe in the resurrection. Additionally, I find the typical secular explanations (the "swoon" theory (Jesus wasn't really dead), the disciples stole the body, etc.) for the resurrection narratives to be pretty poor.
Of course, all this assumes Jesus was a historical person and he was actually buried in a tomb -- both huge unfounded assumptions, I know.
Still, let's assume hypothetically that Jesus and the tomb story are historical. Here's what I think may have happened:
1) Jesus was crucified, much as the gospels describe.
2) Jesus was buried in the tomb, much as the Bible says
3) The disciples were discouraged, much like what was listed in the gospel accounts.
4) Some Jewish zealot or activist with access to Jesus' tomb, someone who knew the Messiah hype surrounding Jesus and wanted to spark a Jewish independence revolution against the Roman Empire, stole the body of Jesus, hoping to spark resurrection rumors and nationalistic fervor.
5) The disciples return to the tomb a few days later, find it empty, and deduce that Jesus was resurrected.
6) They write the gospels, adding mythological elements to embellish the story.
I think this eliminates the problem of Jesus' disciples dying for something they knew to be a lie (assuming they stole the body), or the improbable event of the Romans botching a crucifixion. It also eliminates the supernatural explanation of Jesus actually rising from the dead (which I believe to be impossible).
What do you think about my idea?
Thanks for the post - I was following until point number number 4. You conceded taht the possibility of the Romans botching the crucifixion as "imporbable." Why? I would like to suggest because they are trained killers. They were the most disciplined and efficient killing machine the world had ever saw.
With this in mind, multiple sources attest to legionnaires guarding the tomb of Jesus. We know there was more than two from Matthew, since Matthew 28 states: "some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests [what] had happened." History shows the Romans knew how dangerous uprisings could be, and as such, since this simple man named Jesus had such a powerful influence on people, they wanted to ensure no one would play any funny business.
Now... maybe the legionnaires were bribed into letting some lunatic in. If you research Roman military organization, however, the punishment of falling asleep on watch was at the very least receiving lashings, and as severe as being stoned by your comrades. In this context, I find it very hard to believe these soldiers would have risked that for some coin (Keep in mind this happend AFTER the Marian Reforms, so legionnaires were actually quite well taken care of and at this point legionnaires were considered professional soliders and received regular pay).
Just doesn't add up to me... and that is why I cannot accept your explanation as a valid one. The mysterious vanishing of a guard post from a tomb, especially when we are talking Roman legionnaires, is simply not a feasible option.
Just as nonsensical as the other "explanations", in my opinion. Why would all of these people assume Jesus was resurrected just because his body was missing? One or two, I could perhaps buy, but all of them? And it still makes all of the post-resurrection appearances a lie on the apostles' part, meaning it doesn't remove the problem of them "dying for what they knew was a lie". Unless they were all hallucinations, but then you have the problem with that many people all hallucinating the same thing simultaneously.
The way I see it, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then the only logical explanation is that the Gospel writers, or their sources, were knowingly lying. If they were lying, then they knew that Jesus was wrong and had nothing to offer them, but were willing to risk their lives for Jesus anyways. Again, I could perhaps buy it if we were talking about one or two people, but there had to have been a lot of people in a position to know that Jesus wasn't resurrected, but were still willing to die for him.
People talk about the resurrection being an "extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence", but the opposing theories, including this one, are also extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. The problem is, they have no evidence at all. Not even Jesus' opponents were claiming that any of these things happened. When we're dealing with competing extraordinary claims, with no "mundane claim" being offered, then I'll go with the extraordinary claim that at least has SOME evidence to support it, that is at least being claimed by people who were around at the time and in a position to know what happened. I just don't see any evidence of "knowingly lying" in early Christianity.
Exactly. We're also assuming we understand how the Jews perceived ressurection. I HIGHLY recommend to everyone a study of NT Wright. Essentially, having someone claim to be the Christ and gathering together a following was not unusual in those days... and it typically ended with the death of the leader. Because fo this, Peter, John, etc. KNEW that if Jesus died, that was it. They never thought of the possiblity of a resurrected Christ, because exprience showed them that whenever the leader was killed, the followers disbanded.
But we see a very different thing here, don't we? Not only did his followers stay put... it literally exploded in growth, against all odds. Paul also converted, etc. It seems to me the best explanation for these events is that Christ literally was resurrected.
Thanks for the post - I was following until point number number 4. You conceded taht the possibility of the Romans botching the crucifixion as "imporbable." Why? I would like to suggest because they are trained killers. They were the most disciplined and efficient killing machine the world had ever saw.
That is hyperbole. Every society had its "efficient killing machines" -- including Rome, China, Japan, and Texas. You want to make Rome seem "efficient" in order to justify belief in your religious myth. The Romans were humans and they could botch a crucifixion, even though that is highly unlikely.
Quote:
With this in mind, multiple sources attest to legionnaires guarding the tomb of Jesus.
No, they don't. The only source that attests to guards is Matthew, and the writer of Matthew was known to embellish and mythologize stories (people coming out of their graves at the crucifixion, darkness, etc.). None of the other gospels mention guards, and certainly none of the secular contemporary sources mention guards. The guards were probably a myth perpetuated by the anonymous writer of Matthew to make the resurrection story seem more plausible.
Quote:
We know there was more than two from Matthew, since Matthew 28 states: "some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests [what] had happened." History shows the Romans knew how dangerous uprisings could be, and as such, since this simple man named Jesus had such a powerful influence on people, they wanted to ensure no one would play any funny business.
Matthew was probably lying. The Romans knew how to put down major uprisings, but this wasn't a major uprising. If it was, then why isn't it mentioned in Roman records before 60 CE (30 years after Jesus' death)?
There were no guards.
Quote:
Now... maybe the legionnaires were bribed into letting some lunatic in. If you research Roman military organization, however, the punishment of falling asleep on watch was at the very least receiving lashings, and as severe as being stoned by your comrades. In this context, I find it very hard to believe these soldiers would have risked that for some coin (Keep in mind this happend AFTER the Marian Reforms, so legionnaires were actually quite well taken care of and at this point legionnaires were considered professional soliders and received regular pay).
There were no guards.
Quote:
Just doesn't add up to me... and that is why I cannot accept your explanation as a valid one. The mysterious vanishing of a guard post from a tomb, especially when we are talking Roman legionnaires, is simply not a feasible option.
There were no guards, and any naturalistic explanation is better than an explanation that infers an impossible supernatural resurrection and a god for which there is no evidence.
Christ was resurrected for all, for All, for then a greater all. Not All can believe it. Who does and doesn't believe it changed from time to time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
