Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Ethel:

Can you explain some things?

Sure. If I can. The real question is will you read it and deal with what I say.

(1) You wrote:

"Jesus was the House of David himself"

In another place, you wrote:

"He was of the line of David"

Where did you get this information? You reject the Bible as a credible source, correct? So, it wasn't from the Bible was it? Perhaps, it was Gnostic literature from which you derived this information because you write:

From the Bible. There is no other source of course. I have said many times that I am asking for evidence to support the supernatural events not the mundane ones. Of course I don't know that he was a descendant of David. There is more version of his lineage in the Bible on top of it. Plus I am pretty sure one is claiming Joseph and since the supernatural claim is that Joseph is not the father thats another problem. However he is still portrayed as descendent of David and that is all I have to go on.

Its either that or we can talk about whether anything in the Bible is real.

"Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line."

If the Gnostics are your source, what makes Gnostic literature more reliable than the Bible?

I don't trust either. Its all there is though. There is no other source than believers. Gnostic or Biblical its still unsubstantiated although in this area they both agree which at least means that it might be true.

(2) You made those statements about Jesus in the line of David in part to support your point that Jesus was not an insignificant person as I indicated Crossan and Borg believed him to be. Here is what I wrote:

Might not be as insignificant as they were claiming. Without outside evidence their is no way of knowing. He may very well have merely been one of many preachers and otherwise largely marginal. Without another source its hard to tell.

The Gnostics believe the wedding that Jesus is supposed have turned water into wine was his wedding to Mary Magdeline.

Who knows? In the English translation it could be that way but why isn't it stated explicitly. Perhaps the Gnositics had a version where it was so stated.

If you take the picture of Jesus drawn up by Borg and Crossan (two leading secular scholars on Jesus), you have a very insignificant man wandering through a very insignificant province doing what as many as hundreds before him had done. What made him different?

You replied:

"Not being that way in the first place. He was of the line of David. Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line. Herod certainly wasn't. The province was not insignifcant. It was just as now the crossroads between Europe and both Africa and India. Hardly insignificant. "

"Yes there were others. They didn't get lucky. Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible. "

"That kind of manipulation of oppinion makes a difference."

So whats the problem there. Its a supposition based on the Bible and Gnostic writings. Plus the reality of Israel's importance as a trade route.

The Romans did trade with India even if they did no know the source. So did Carthage. A coin or perhaps a medalion has been found that shows one of Hannibals elephants and its an Indian elephant.

Now, here's what I don't understand. If Jesus wasn't insignificant, why isn't he mentioned in contemporary Roman sources of the period (as you so repeatedly point out)?

I don't know. I wasn't saying that he was significant. I was saying they were ignoring things that the Bible had that appear to put Jesus in a rather more significant position than they were saying. I was pointing out flaw that may or may not be a real one depending largely on wheter Jesus really was descended from David. If he wasn't then he does not fit the requirements of being the Messiah. Which makes the question of whether he was or was not a significant figure a bit more significant.

If he wasn't significant then how do you deal with the claim that he was legitamate heir to the House of David which is what follows from the Biblical and Gnostic claims. It is also needed to be the Messiah.

Of course the Romans wouldn't see it that way. They didn't bother to record any of this or if they did the information has been lost. The Jews obviously wouldn't have agreed with it. Jesus definitly did not fit the Jewish of a Mesiah. Dying is then end of such a claim as dead people don't rule nations.

Also, you deny Ant 18.3.3 S63-64 contains anything that can be attributed to Josephus, declaring that Ant 20.9.1 S200-201 is the only reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus. This latter reference mentions him only by association to his brother, James, who is actually the focus of the passage. From your standpoint then, if Jesus wasn't insignificant, why doesn't Josephus mention him?

He does mention him. Once. I hear that in other places he shows a dislike for Christians. I can't find that in the bits of Josephus that I have however.

(3) Here's a problem I have that exhibits the problems of #1 and #2 in the same argument. You wrote:

"Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible."

Now, you do have the qualifier "Perhaps" so perhaps you do not believe this actually happened but it would seem you do as you are using it as proof that Jesus wasn't insignificant.

You need to work on the concept of casting doubt on someones thesis. I am not trying to prove anything. I am showing ways in which they may be wrong. They may be right.

If I get the gist of your argument, Jesus became popular because he deliberately did "things that matched a prophecy." According to the quote, you received this information from "the Bible" but I thought the Bible wasn't a credible witness? Why are you allowed to use it to prove your point?

Why should I not? This a discusion about Christianity and the Bible. Its real hard to discuss that without actualy using the Bible. I cannot at all discuss books about the history of Jesus without using the ONLY sources available. There is information on the general history and culture from that era that is not in the Bible but those books only use that to better understand what is in the Bible. If they have missed something that is in the Bible than the other sources don't really help much since they are dealing with errors in the first place.

You do have an understanding of the idea of treating something as true or at least possibly true for the sake of going on don't you? I cannot discuss those things without doing this. Its exactly the same as when I discuss the Bible as literly true with a Creationist. I must deal with the Bible and have no other choice except to exit the discusion. Perhaps that is really what you want but you summoned me. You get to deal with the consequences just like a sorcerer that forgot to close a pentagram when summoning a demon (see The Fallible Fiend by L. Sprague De Camp told from the demon's point of view).

(4) Based on your use of the Bible to corroborate certain statements, perhaps you will find this article interesting:

http://www.cga94.com/contributors/stuff/crucifixion/

This article makes rather literal use of the Bible, which I might even have cause to dispute but you appeared to have shown a willingness to use the Bible to prove certain things in your argument so I guess I should have no qualms about using it here. Irregardless of its high view of the Bible as an historical witness (obviously derived from the Pastors who unfortunately co-wrote the article), its medical findings about crucifixion would seem to strongly contradict your claim that Jesus swooned.

Interesting yes. Fully convincing no. Its a bad start when someone uses as proven fraud as part of their evidence. The Shroud of Turnin is a proven fraud. I know there are those that deny this but they are simply refusing to accept reality which makes it very bad sign.

When dealing with the scourging of Jesus they talk as if the Romans that lashed Jesus might have struck more then 39 times the Jewish law required. They were Romans not Jews. They did what Romans did and were not acting according to Jewish law. That means it could have been far lass than 39 strokes yet they failed to see that possibility. They also claim that when the Romans took of a cloak that his wounds might have reopened. How? The wounds were fresh at that point so the blood would still be wet. This is not a sign of clear thinking.

The spear thrust is only in John. Its odd that the other versions do not have it. Even if such a thing actually happened it may not have been done well. It is the only real reason for thinking that Jeusus must have died in such a short time. If it was in all four gospels it would be a little more probable. However people do add things over time to stories and most signs point to John being the last gospel to be written down.

Shock does not always lead to death. What they were doing really is assuming that Jesus died and were trying how it could have happened so quickly. He could just as easily have collapsed into unconciousness and coma under those conditions. That is what sometimes happens when people are badly injured.

There was a case in the newpaper (I don't know it was true or not, sometime people like to make things up just to con the papers) during the Viet Nam War where someone was sent home in a body bag. The body had not yet been embalmed. When the embalmer cut the body open to replace the blood with embalming fluid he noticed the artery that is usually used was pulsing. The man recovered.

A friend of mine, Greg, had something similar. The doctors called his father five seperate times telling him that Greg had died after a very bad auto accident that killed his grandparents and badly injured his brother Bruce. Bruce woke up in the hospital and asked where his brother was. That was the first anyone knew there were four people and not three in the car. Greg had been thrown out of the car, hit a light pole, dented it with his head and landed on the side of road where he was not seen till they went back to find him. Greg survived. I am not so sure he was undamaged (he had some annoying habits) but he did survive.

Gregs father was a neuro-surgeon and he kept telling the docters that he was still alive. Over the phone. Somehow he was right and the people on the scene were wrong.

Now that was a man that was injured badly and in a coma and know one that handled the body had noticed that he was still alive. The doctors did say Greg was brain dead they said he was dead. These of course are not a frequent occurances but these things do happen upon occasion.

This article makes rather literal use of the Bible, which I might even have cause to dispute but you appeared to have shown a willingness to use the Bible to prove certain things in your argument so I guess I should have no qualms about using it here.

What is this odd dislike you have for me using the Bible in a discussion involving the Bible? I am not using it as if I believed in it but as if you, and others do. If you don't then why did you start the thread?

Irregardless of its high view of the Bible as an historical witness (obviously derived from the Pastors who unfortunately co-wrote the article), its medical findings about crucifixion would seem to strongly contradict your claim that Jesus swooned.

I said coma not swooned. Swooning does not involve a lowered metabolic rate. It would not protect someone from asphyxiation wheras a coma has a possiblity of doing so. Those weren't medical findings so much as medical oppinions that assume death and the accuracy of both the Bible and the Shroud of Turin, a known fake. Many of things are plausible, others are open to question. The spear thrust has always looked to me like something that was added on. Both to prove death and show that Jesus even in death had no broken bones as is needed to qualify for a sacrifice.

[Ethelred]

Britannica World Language Dictionary gives the contextually-relevant of definition of "canon" that I used as "The books of the Bible that are recognized by the Church as inspired." As you were talking about a "filtered" Bible whereby certain documents "got left out," weren't we talking about "Canon"? In fact, isn't my choice of words more exact?

Sorry this is due to jargon speak. To me a canon is either a church official or spelled with two Ls and tends to go bang. Its been a while since I have dealt with formal Church jargon.

I am of course talking about the Bible being filtered. I stand on that.

First of all, you make it seem as if that is an inconsequential difference.

Thats your perception not mine. It has less meaning than you might inmagine, at least with Catholics. For one the Apocrypha were in the original KJV. For another the Catholics don't really use it much from what I recall. Same for Revelations. Maybe that has changed. As I said its been a while.

The Apocrypha of the RCC, which they call the deutero-canonical books, adds seven other books and exapnds the books of Daniel and Esther. The Greek Orthodox Church is more drastic in its differences: First, the GOC uses the LXX (rather than the MT or a critical text) as its official OT text; Second, they add everything the RCC does plus 1 & 2 Edras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees.

I don't think that add is the right word just as with the Catholic Bible. For most of Europe the Catholic Latin version was the Bible for over a thousand years. So it is at least as accurate to say the Protestants and Anglicans dropped those parts. More accurate really.

Since I haven't discussed the religion with any of the Orthodox Christians I hadn't noticed those. I don't see that as contradicting what I said. Not because there are no differences but because they are not all that important. Not like the matter of droping the Gnostic stuff. I was mostly thinking of the New Testament when I said that.

So there are more differences then I was aware of. Thank you on that.

At various times and places, the Acts of Paul, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and I Clement were used as Scripture. And so on and so on.

That is not the present case which is what I was talking about. However that does support my point about it being filtered.

Third of all, I'd like to contend with your statement that the Bible is "filtered." I'm not sure how you mean this term but it seems to carry the conviction that the books were chosen on the basis of whether they were agreeable or not to the doctrine of the church.

What I mean is that stuff was left out. Stuff that was not liked for whatever reason. Agreeable, disliked or thought to be fraudulent its still filtering. I am not saying that didn't have to be done just that it was and that the process must have an effect on the meaning of the present day Bible.

Yet, if that was the case, we would not have four gospels as canonical, we would have the Diatessaron as canonical or another edited version of the gospels. The gospels themselves contain many obstacles to harmonization and in that respect have often been criticized past and present. So, why would the church preserve four gospels with "apparently" uncomplimentary accounts of Jesus Christ? The tendency of most early Christian churches was to possess and use only one gospel. So, why wasn't just one gospel chosen?

Sounds like a matter of compromise. If only one cannot be chosen then a variety must.

Uncomplementary or contradictory? The term has both meanings. I assume you don't mean contradictory. What looks uncomplementary to us today may have looked different then. It does have contradictions though. Why they are their are not my problem to solve. I don't think its anything but the word of fallible men. Men that got a lot of stuff wrong.

The core biblical books were not filtered by one group with one view.

The first ever put together in a single block and in multiple copies was indeed produced that way. 50 copies were made for Constantine by Eusebious. Considering who wanted them and his importance to Christianity its likely that those specific copies had more influence on what went in and what didn't than other thing ever did.

Instead, they represent the texts that over the course of history were regarded as the most reliable and authentic of the ancient witnesses by a consensus of Christians from disparate communities of faith. These ancient witnesses were repeatedly debated as I've indicated by way of a few examples and still are today. But, even if you opened the canon today, the end result would probably still be a consensus that the 27 books of the NT are the best, most reliable, and authentic witnesses to Jesus and early Christianity. Modern scholarship supports this view:

I don't have a problem with that statement. Except I don't think they are all that reliable in the first place. I am willing to believe that those that remain are better than what didn't make it. Still some stuff that was left out very well may have had things that were just as accurate but someone didn't like what they said. Things like Jesus and Jehovah being to entirely different entities. That sure couldn't have gone over well after the Trinity concept became popular.

No way were they going to accept the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and after the Crucifiction took off for Northern Europe. Yet that is a possibility especially if one assumes Jesus was just a human being.

You have not established your claim that the Resurection was extremely likely to have occured. A belief is all that is needed for people to act. It happens all the time.

[ckweb]

What is this odd dislike you have for me using the Bible in a discussion involving the Bible? I am not using it as if I believed in it but as if you, and others do. If you don't then why did you start the thread?

Here's the problem: As I showed in my last post by quoting your statements, you used the Bible to counter one of my arguments. In other words, you used it as support. Yet, if I were to do the same thing, I am criticized because the Bible is not credible in your eyes. This is a double standard. Either the Bible is a source to which we can both appeal or it is not a source for our discussions. Or, alternatively, you may have suggested a way out:

I have said many times that I am asking for evidence to support the supernatural events not the mundane ones.

If this is the case, are you therefore saying that the Bible is a credible source in every respect except the supernatural? I don't think you are saying that. In which case it would still be foolish for me to use the Bible even on mundane events because you would simply end up denying the accuracy of the mundane events, not unlike you did with the article "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ." So, from a practical point of view, it appears that you are effectively refusing to allow me the use of the Bible while at the same time allowing yourself to use it in any way that you see fit. Help?

-----------------------------

He does mention him. Once. I hear that in other places he shows a dislike for Christians. I can't find that in the bits of Josephus that I have however.

Okay, I granted you that for the sake of argument. My point was that even that one reference is only by association to James. In other words, Jesus doesn't even register high enough on the radar to discuss in his own right. James, his brother, is discussed in his own right but not Jesus. This seems odd, doesn't it? The one reference in Josephus only amplifies the degree of Jesus' insignificance.

Now, this creates two roads, two dilemmas:

(1) If Jesus was an insignificant person that not even Josephus, let alone the Romans, write about him, why is he suddenly the object of "voluminous" amounts of literature shortly after his death? Why does he suddenly and inexplicably become the focus of all sorts of superstitions, legends, myths, and stories or as Jack wrote, "an amalgam of various figures: some mythical, some possibly real"?

(2) If Jesus was a significant person who attracted all sorts of attention and he became legendary in his own time, why don't the Roman historians or at least why doesn't Josephus write about him (with more than a reference by association)?

We've reached a fork in the road, which way do you want to turn? I've selected dilemma one, which incidentally means sources are largely inconsequential to my argument (as I've indicated all along). Which dilemma do you take? Remember, I asked you a while back for an explanation of the sociological phenomenon of Christianity. Your answer seemed to be going in the direction of dilemma two, though now you seem more cautious. If you take dilemma two (as I thought you already had) it ironically means you need sources. Oh, what a pickle we've gotten ourselves into?!

If he wasn't significant then how do you deal with the claim that he was legitamate heir to the House of David which is what follows from the Biblical and Gnostic claims. It is also needed to be the Messiah.

Please respond to the next two paragraphs in their totality. Both paragraphs are necessary to understand my response in full.

There are three possible ways to account for Jesus in the legimate line of David: (1) Adoption through Joseph (this is accepted in Jewish practice; Jesus would be considered in all respects in the patrilineal descent of David), (2) Matrilineal descent through Mary (today, a Jew is defined as any individual born of a Jewish mother, regardless of the ethnicity of the father; I'm not sure of matrilineal descent held such significance in the time of Jesus but it is possible), (3) The requirements of Messiahship was, even in the Old Testament, never limited to individuals of Davidic lineage. As a case in point, the Messiah of Second Isaiah is Cyrus of Persia.

Now, having established three possible ways Jesus could be a legitimate Messiah, I must also account for how this did not accrue to his popularity. The reason is simple actually: If the Gospels themselves and the Talmud are any indication, a tradition developed very early on that Jesus was illegimate. As such, his adoption by Joseph, matrilineal descent through Mary, and/or his very Messiahship would have been ridiculed irregardless of any truthfulness or accuracy in any one of the three possibilities. The ridicule, however, does not invalidate the possibilities (x2, if Jesus actually wasn't illegimate, being conceived by the Holy Spirit).

------------------------------

This is an aside. I'm not representing the material below, between the dotted lines, as part of my argument with you.

The Shroud of Turnin is a proven fraud.

I have never spent much time dealing with the issue of the Shroud of Turin but I did do a little research on the topic last night. As far as I can tell, it's not so clear cut. The C-14 dating in 1988 indicates that it is from the Middle Ages but C-14 dating is not inerrant (even Willard F. Libby admitted this fact). Moreover, there is some evidence that a bioplastic coating on the Shroud contaminated the C-14 dating. Worse yet, there also seems to be some evidence in the letters of the late Dr. Tite, who supervised the C-14 dating, that he purposefully swapped the Shroud sample with a sample of cloth from the Middle Ages. Furthermore, the 1978 STURP investigation yielded some rather interesting scientific findings, reported in the 1981 Final Report:

"No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."

I found this information at a number of websites across the Internet. The most reputable of which seems to be http://www.shroud.com/. This site seems to have a relatively balanced approach on the issue and also provides an extensive list of peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic: http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm.

Anyways, this is just a rabbit trail. Please do not pretend that I am using the Shroud of Turin in anyway with respect to my argument. Let me repeat: this is just an aside.

-----------------------

I said coma not swooned.

You never said "coma" until now (at least not to me and at least not that I can recall). All you said was that he wasn't dead yet. I assumed swooned; my mistake. I do have one question, though. How do you suppose he survived without modern medical attention? He'd have to contend with blood loss, paralysis in the hands and possibly feet, dehydration, and being on the inside of a sealed tomb among many other things.

Those weren't medical findings so much as medical oppinions that assume death and the accuracy of both the Bible and the Shroud of Turin, a known fake.

I saw many flaws in the article myself. But, they do provide an accurate accounting of crucifixion and the suffering it inflicts upon a human being. The article derived this information from Roman sources and archaeological discoveries, which they footnoted. It seems quite extraordinary to me to propose that Jesus would not have died given the nature of a crucifixion and Roman efficiency in executing it. Do you have any independent sources that indicate other men survived crucifixions?

---------------------------

The spear claim is only in John and he contradicts the other gosples on a number of things.

The spear thrust is only in John. Its odd that the other versions do not have it. Even if such a thing actually happened it may not have been done well. It is the only real reason for thinking that Jeusus must have died in such a short time. If it was in all four gospels it would be a little more probable. However people do add things over time to stories and most signs point to John being the last gospel to be written down.

So, I take it, in your opinion the Synoptic Gospels are more reliable about the crucifixion? A reasonable explanation is actually self-evident from the biblical text: The writers of the Synoptic Gospels were not present at the crucifixion (nor were the people traditionally believed as the sources for their information, except perhaps Luke) while on the other hand the Fourth Gospel claims the Beloved Disciple as its author (and source) and according to John 19:25-27, he was present at the crucifixion. I'd take the Fourth Gospel's report as more reliable with respect to details on account of this fact. If this is the case, who cares if it was written later? (Although even that isn't scholarly consensus since the finding of the DSS, which makes dating John earlier considerably more plausible).

[ckweb]

I wrote a nice, in-depth reply to your points and then lost it when I tried to preview. I pretty miffed! Oh well, here's a condensed version:

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

Britannica World Language Dictionary gives the contextually-relevant of definition of "canon" that I used as "The books of the Bible that are recognized by the Church as inspired." As you were talking about a "filtered" Bible whereby certain documents "got left out," weren't we talking about "Canon"? In fact, isn't my choice of words more exact?

Sorry this is due to jargon speak. To me a canon is either a church official or spelled with two Ls and tends to go bang. Its been a while since I have dealt with formal Church jargon.

I am of course talking about the Bible being filtered. I stand on that.

Cool. We've actually been able to resolve a problem. This is a defining moment in this thread.

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

First of all, you make it seem as if that is an inconsequential difference.

Thats your perception not mine. It has less meaning than you might inmagine, at least with Catholics. For one the Apocrypha were in the original KJV. For another the Catholics don't really use it much from what I recall. Same for Revelations. Maybe that has changed. As I said its been a while.

I'm not sure how the KJV is relevant but the RCC use of the deutero-canonical books is significant. For instance, the doctrine of purgatory is in part based on a passage in 1 Maccabbees.

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

The Apocrypha of the RCC, which they call the deutero-canonical books, adds seven other books and exapnds the books of Daniel and Esther. The Greek Orthodox Church is more drastic in its differences: First, the GOC uses the LXX (rather than the MT or a critical text) as its official OT text; Second, they add everything the RCC does plus 1 & 2 Edras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees.

I don't think that add is the right word just as with the Catholic Bible. For most of Europe the Catholic Latin version was the Bible for over a thousand years. So it is at least as accurate to say the Protestants and Anglicans dropped those parts. More accurate really.

This really depends on perspective I suppose. Even in his Latin Vulgate, which does not achieve its authoritative status in Europe until the 9th century C.E., Jerome regards the deutero-canonical books as uninspired. Similarly, Athanasius and Origen do not seem to have regarded the deutero-canonical books on the same level as the other 39 books of the OT. Plus, the RCC did not canonize the deutero-canonical books until after the Protestants rejected them. As pointed out, the RCC formally decided canon at the Council of Trent.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Since I haven't discussed the religion with any of the Orthodox Christians I hadn't noticed those. I don't see that as contradicting what I said. Not because there are no differences but because they are not all that important. Not like the matter of droping the Gnostic stuff. I was mostly thinking of the New Testament when I said that.

It's not that Gnostic literature was dropped per se (there was no canon as yet to drop it from). It was merely that the majority of the Christian churches, which were not homogenous, tended to reject Gnostic literature as heretical and unreliable. On the latter point, most modern scholarship has tended to support the majority of the early Christian churches. Yet, for a decent length of time, Gnosticism actually co-existed alongside the Christian churches that would eventually suppress them. In fact, Valentinus, a prominent Gnostic, may, at one time, have been considered for election as Bishop of Rome. The Gnostics are not persecuted until at least the time of Irenaeus around 180 C.E. and it certainly doesn't take a bloody turn until the time of Constantine.

Originally posted by Ethelred
So there are more differences then I was aware of. Thank you on that.

Not a problem.

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

At various times and places, the Acts of Paul, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and I Clement were used as Scripture. And so on and so on.

That is not the present case which is what I was talking about. However that does support my point about it being filtered.

I'm not doubting that the Christian churches filtered the Bible. It just simply wasn't one group and the decisions made by the various Christian churches were not always the same. The majority of Christian churches did begin to reach a consensus on the majority of NT books under consideration but in many respects they made their decisions independently of one another. The debate continued right into the Reformation. And, in certain circles, continues to this day.

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

Third of all, I'd like to contend with your statement that the Bible is "filtered." I'm not sure how you mean this term but it seems to carry the conviction that the books were chosen on the basis of whether they were agreeable or not to the doctrine of the church.

What I mean is that stuff was left out. Stuff that was not liked for whatever reason. Agreeable, disliked or thought to be fraudulent its still filtering. I am not saying that didn't have to be done just that it was and that the process must have an effect on the meaning of the present day Bible.

I do not think it did "have an effect on the meaning of the present day Bible." The filtering never involved changing the texts themselves. In the few places biblical books were actually changed, scholars have been able to recover the original by comparing the myriad of extant manuscripts. Also, much of the stuff that was left out of the canons of the mainstream Christian churches can also be recovered, analyzed, and interpreted.

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

Yet, if that was the case, we would not have four gospels as canonical, we would have the Diatessaron as canonical or another edited version of the gospels. The gospels themselves contain many obstacles to harmonization and in that respect have often been criticized past and present. So, why would the church preserve four gospels with "apparently" uncomplimentary accounts of Jesus Christ? The tendency of most early Christian churches was to possess and use only one gospel. So, why wasn't just one gospel chosen?

Sounds like a matter of compromise. If only one cannot be chosen then a variety must.

Exactly. No one Christian church was able to exert control over the process. The process took place over many long years and moved through many debates.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Uncomplementary or contradictory? The term has both meanings. I assume you don't mean contradictory. What looks uncomplementary to us today may have looked different then. It does have contradictions though. Why they are their are not my problem to solve. I don't think its anything but the word of fallible men. Men that got a lot of stuff wrong.

I was purposefully ambiguous. The people were quite aware of the discrepancies and problems created by four Gospels. That is why the Diatessaron was written. However, I think it is telling that ultimately the Christian churches each choose to accept four Gospels with competing voices rather than an harmonization. They favoured authenticity over homogeneity.

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

The core biblical books were not filtered by one group with one view.

The first ever put together in a single block and in multiple copies was indeed produced that way. 50 copies were made for Constantine by Eusebious. Considering who wanted them and his importance to Christianity its likely that those specific copies had more influence on what went in and what didn't than other thing ever did.

In multiple copies, maybe. I'm really not too sure. Do you have source? In a single block, not necessarily. The oldest codices presently extant are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These date to the time of Eusebius and as such, some have thought that these may have been prepared by him (which would be interesting because they are not homogenous; while containing the same core, they contain different collections of OT and NT apocryphal books). A core of NT books were already accepted by most Christian churches by the time of Eusebius. In the latter part of the 4th century (after Eusebius), several synods and councils standardized the 27 NT books but they did so, it would appear, based on Athanasius and Origen more than Eusebius. But, the synods and councils only established a standard within their sphere of influence and even then the debate continued.

BTW, the Church of Constantinople was not the most significant church at the time: Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome almost certainly took precedence. Constantine was very rarely able to exert power over these churches. Also, it should be noted, that there is no centralized hierarchy at this time, the various mainstream churches came together as relative equals at the councils. Rome increasingly attempted to exert control over the other churches but usually failed. The tension eventually resulted in schism. It is a common (Euro-centric) misconception that the RCC was the only Christian church. Antioch, Constantinople (which would become the Eastern Orthodox), Alexandria, and Jerusalem were all independent of Rome. Its patriarchs wielding the same authority as the Roman bishops. The arrival of Islam suppressed but did not eliminate the Eastern churches. Islam also stopped the level of discourse between the Eastern and Western churches. Within the RCC, there were major divisions throughout its history. Also, the Reformation is not the first sign of Christian traditions distinct from the RCC in Europe. The RCC just loves to paint the picture that it is the "True Church" and has maintained an uninterrupted line of Apostolic Succession (which simply is not true).

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

Instead, they represent the texts that over the course of history were regarded as the most reliable and authentic of the ancient witnesses by a consensus of Christians from disparate communities of faith. These ancient witnesses were repeatedly debated as I've indicated by way of a few examples and still are today. But, even if you opened the canon today, the end result would probably still be a consensus that the 27 books of the NT are the best, most reliable, and authentic witnesses to Jesus and early Christianity. Modern scholarship supports this view:

I don't have a problem with that statement. Except I don't think they are all that reliable in the first place. I am willing to believe that those that remain are better than what didn't make it. Still some stuff that was left out very well may have had things that were just as accurate but someone didn't like what they said. Things like Jesus and Jehovah being to entirely different entities. That sure couldn't have gone over well after the Trinity concept became popular.

I'm not really interested in debating the Trinity but I will say this much. Christians very early on developed the belief that Jesus is God and if the canonical Gospels are accurate, Jesus made this claim himself. It was not articulated as the "Trinity" because it was not necessary to have such a doctrinal formulation. Eventually, the mainstream churches did decide to form doctrinal statements on such matters for the purposes of achieving unity (although, in reality, the councils created schisms) and homogeneity. They also felt it necessary in order to combat heresies. But, either way, the core of the NT books were already achieving consensus among the churches that participated in the councils and so it is not really the councils that affected the filtering process but the NT books that informed the decisions of the councils.

Originally posted by Ethelred
No way were they going to accept the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and after the Crucifiction took off for Northern Europe. Yet that is a possibility especially if one assumes Jesus was just a human being.

The Gospel of Kazantzakis, Scorsese, and Schrader. I think the possibility is awfully remote.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You have not established your claim that the Resurection was extremely likely to have occured. A belief is all that is needed for people to act. It happens all the time.

Laying some groundwork to make sure we are on the same page on some basic issues. I'm getting to it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Personally, I think Jesus died and stayed dead.

Did he get up, walk out among cheering crowds, and resume his activities? No, he did not.

Let's just summarize what each Gospel says about what Jesus did after his miraculous reappearance to his closest followers:

Mark: Nothing. The gospel ends at that point.

Matthew: Nothing.

Luke: Nothing.

John: Nothing.

In all four canonical gospels, Jesus appears to his closest followers, urges his disciples to go forth, and that's it: The End.

In Acts, a period of forty days is mentioned between his resurrection and his ascension, but he still shows himself only to the apostles, and offers "many infallible proofs" only to the apostles.

This is the most detailed summary we have of the post-resurrection career of Jesus:

Acts 1:1-3 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

(Chat between Jesus and his disciples)

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

That's it. That's all he did: "all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up".

Therefore Paul's account, with its "500 witnesses" contradicts the gospels and Acts. And Paul wasn't on the scene, never met Jesus (except in "a vision"), and is generally hazy about the actual details of the life and death of Jesus. Maybe he "had a vision" that there were 500 eyewitnesses?

If Jesus really was the only man in history to actually come back from the dead, this would be BIG news. There would be many accounts from people who actually saw him after the resurrection. And yet we have no such accounts, except from the apostles.

The resurrection of Jesus appears to have been a symbolic one. A handful of cultists refuse to believe that their leader is really dead. Stories begin to circulate: an empty tomb, a missing body, mysterious sightings. They grow with each telling. Decades later, they are written down. This is how myths are born.

The resurrection of Jesus appears to have been nothing more than wishful thinking by his closest followers, followed by decades of exaggeration (in which Jesus still never appears in public after his death, unlike Elvis). Paul's comment is no more significant that that of an Elvis fan saying "hundreds of people have seen Elvis since his alleged death".

[Jack the Bodiless]

Here's where Paul's "500 eyewitnesses" came from:

1 Corinthians 15:1-6 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

There is no indication that Paul knew these 500 people. There is no indication of where Paul got this information from, or whether the person who told Paul was an eyewitness, or even a believer. Maybe he was trying to see how credulous Paul was.

"Elvis? Yeah, he's alive. He showed up as star performer in a highschool prom in Texas somewhere. Musta been a thousand guests saw him, yessir".

In fact, this is a common mistake by many Christians. They first assume the story is true, then cite everyone mentioned in the story (even as an anonymous "500 people") as an eyewitness. The frankly ludicrous claim that Exodus must be true "because of all the eyewitnesses" is an extreme example.

If we assume that the Greek myths are true, then there must have been thousands of eyewitnesses to some of the more spectacular divine manifestations. Zeus chased the gigantic, hundred-headed, fire-breathing Typhon down the Italian peninsula before uprooting a mountain and burying Typhon beneath what is now Etna (the eruptions of Etna are caused by the trapped Typhon). I think the locals would have noticed this.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is no indication that Paul knew these 500 people. There is no indication of where Paul got this information from, or whether the person who told Paul was an eyewitness, or even a believer. Maybe he was trying to see how credulous Paul was.

So you're saying that Paul was making it up, and everybody in Palestine, Greece and Rome knew nothing about it, and still bought it? You're saying that it wasn't common knowledge?
Do you really think the Jews wouldn't execute the so-called "Christians" even before the fall of Jerusalem, if there wouldn't be a strong support from the people to this new "sect"?

Then I'm sure Paul's letters are the greatest "chain-letters" in human history. Everybody heard about them and believed them in no time.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Personally, I think Jesus died and stayed dead.

Personally, I think you are on more plausible ground than Ethel on this one. Naturally, I don't share your opinion, though.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Did he get up, walk out among cheering crowds, and resume his activities? No, he did not.

Let's just summarize what each Gospel says about what Jesus did after his miraculous reappearance to his closest followers:

Mark: Nothing. The gospel ends at that point.

Matthew: Nothing.

Luke: Nothing.

John: Nothing.

In all four canonical gospels, Jesus appears to his closest followers, urges his disciples to go forth, and that's it: The End.

In Acts, a period of forty days is mentioned between his resurrection and his ascension, but he still shows himself only to the apostles, and offers "many infallible proofs" only to the apostles.

This is the most detailed summary we have of the post-resurrection career of Jesus:

That's it. That's all he did: "all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up".

Therefore Paul's account, with its "500 witnesses" contradicts the gospels and Acts. And Paul wasn't on the scene, never met Jesus (except in "a vision"), and is generally hazy about the actual details of the life and death of Jesus. Maybe he "had a vision" that there were 500 eyewitnesses?

Our earliest source on Jesus' activities after the resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15 (cf. 9:1), written about 55 C.E.. It precedes even the Gospels. Here are some important points about Paul's claims:

Although this chapter was included in I Cor as an argument for the reality of the resurrection of those who have died in Christ, it has become a centerpiece in the argument about the reality of the resurrection of Jesus. In the present there are two groups of three by whom Jesus "was seen": Cephas (Peter), the Twelve, and more than 500; then James, all the apostles, and "last of all me." The concluding reference to himself is extremely important since Paul is the only NT writer who claims personally to have witnessed an appearance of the risen Jesus. We may list a number of issues:

(a) Paul places the appearance to himself, even if it was last, on the same level as the appearance to all the other listed witnesses. Acts gives a different picture, for after appearances on earth Jesus ascends into heaven (1:9); consequently, a light and voice comes to Paul from heaven (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:13-15). Few would give the Lucan picture priority over the Pauline.

(b) Paul employs the verbal sequence died/buried/raised/appeared in I Cor 15:3-5 and reuses appeared (the passive of "to see") three more times in 15:6-8. Nevertheless, some have contended that Paul is not referring to seeing Jesus in a bodily form. Since in Paul's understanding Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time, a purely internal vision seems to be ruled out. Moreover, presumably Paul's experience of the risen Jesus has something to do with his expectations about the raising of the dead in the rest of the chap. There he very clearly talks about a resurrection of the body (even if transformed) and uses the analogy of sowing in the ground and what emereges from it (15:35-37).

(c) Much has been made of Paul's silence about Jesus' empty tomb as if that silence were contradictory to the Gospel accounts. Yet there is no a priori reason why he had to mention the tomb, and the burial/resurrection sequence virtually presumes that the risen body is no longer where it was buried. (Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, [ABRL, New York: Doubleday, 1997]: 534-535).

So, here in 1 Cor, our oldest and seemingly most reliable witness, we have the claim that Jesus appeared to Cephas, the Twelve, and more than 500. He then appears to James, the apostles (who are not the Twelve and could represent many people), and Paul. The nature of the language used indicates that Paul recalls these appearances as equal in type and nature. With respect to the 500, although it says they are "brothers" (indicating believers), we do not know if they came to be believers before or after seeing the resurrected Jesus. Given that Jesus probably didn't have 500 followers in his own time, they are likely individuals who came to follow Jesus after their experience in seeing him and at the time of writing are numbered among the "brothers."

Now, let's turn to the rest of the biblical accounts: From the Gospels, we know that he appeared to Peter and Cleopas; he appeared to Mary Magdalene; he appeared to his disciples. He ate with them, travelled with them, went fishing with them, interpreted Scripture with them, and taught them. From Acts, we know that he appeared to the disciples and the apostles in bodily form. Acts also reports his appearance in visions to Stephen and Paul. The author of Revelations claims to have seen visions of Jesus. So, it is as you say, no appearances by Jesus except to individuals that followed him before the crucifixion. It is worthwhile to point out, however, that the Gospels also report that his disciples fled and abandoned him before the crucifixion. They had no expectation of a resurrection so in that respect they were not believers per se. They are described as more concerned with keeping their own lives in view of their former master's death than interested in proclaiming a myth about his resurrection. Moreover, although the Pauline and Gospel accounts are told from different perspectives and therefore include different sets of appearances, they are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
If Jesus really was the only man in history to actually come back from the dead, this would be BIG news. There would be many accounts from people who actually saw him after the resurrection. And yet we have no such accounts, except from the apostles.

First, the Resurrection is followed by an Ascension. Convenient perhaps but reported none the less. Jesus' ministry, at every point, was intended for the Jews.

[As an aside: In addition, for some reason, not entirely understood by me (although I might speculate), God wants to deal with people on faith. Those who have faith are promised the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and you are welcome to ask any Christian if they have had that indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Christians throughout the centuries testify to this same experience and many testify to more: visions, conversations, etc. Of course, this information is often just dismissed as fraudulent and inadmissible because its source is Christians, which incidentally is also the reason the Bible is often dismissed. Seems odd to me that the people who have experienced the events are the ones whose testimony is dismissed . . . not sure in what other part of life people employ that type of logic.]

Second, you presuppose a writing culture. How high do think literacy rates were in that time? Those who saw Jesus may have thought themselves well represented in the persons of Peter, James, and Paul, and in the literature being produced by the few in their circles that had the ability.

Third, despite this fact, we do have voluminous amounts of literature about Jesus written in the time after his Resurrection. Some authentic; some claiming to rely on authentic witness; some inauthentic.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The resurrection of Jesus appears to have been a symbolic one. A handful of cultists refuse to believe that their leader is really dead. Stories begin to circulate: an empty tomb, a missing body, mysterious sightings. They grow with each telling. Decades later, they are written down. This is how myths are born.

The resurrection of Jesus appears to have been nothing more than wishful thinking by his closest followers, followed by decades of exaggeration (in which Jesus still never appears in public after his death, unlike Elvis). Paul's comment is no more significant that that of an Elvis fan saying "hundreds of people have seen Elvis since his alleged death".

The testimony of the Bible, at least, is that the "handful of cultists" you speak about did accept his death, were fearful of their own deaths, and were utterly discouraged that Jesus was not who they thought he had been. The stories begin to circulate and yet nobody points out the absence of fact behind the stories? It's not foreigners that were first convinced of the resurrection; it was Jews. Christianity developed first in the area where the most people would have been familiar with the real facts. This is not how myths are born! Myths are born in more abstract ways. At most, this is how legends are born. But, how did this legend develop within the context of strict Jewish monotheism? The Jews did not believe in pagan mystery religions; in fact, their very way of life and all their traditions were antithetical to the development of a God-man saviour mythos. Jerusalem is the last place in the Roman Empire where such a tradition would develop. Also, why does Jesus become the focus of such "myths"? He was not the first claimant to the title of Messiah nor the last. No other comparable phenomenon developed around any other Messiah figure of the time. They died; their followers dispersed. The formula repeats over and over again; before and after the time of Jesus. Why is Jesus different?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Here's where Paul's "500 eyewitnesses" came from:

Quote:

1 Corinthians 15:1-6 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

There is no indication that Paul knew these 500 people. There is no indication of where Paul got this information from, or whether the person who told Paul was an eyewitness, or even a believer. Maybe he was trying to see how credulous Paul was.

Sure there is an indication that Paul knew these 500 people; he is aware of whether they are alive or dead. Also, you should quote a more modern translation. Geez, the KJV, or whatever it is you are using, is a real pain.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
"Elvis? Yeah, he's alive. He showed up as star performer in a highschool prom in Texas somewhere. Musta been a thousand guests saw him, yessir".

In fact, this is a common mistake by many Christians. They first assume the story is true, then cite everyone mentioned in the story (even as an anonymous "500 people") as an eyewitness. The frankly ludicrous claim that Exodus must be true "because of all the eyewitnesses" is an extreme example.

If we assume that the Greek myths are true, then there must have been thousands of eyewitnesses to some of the more spectacular divine manifestations. Zeus chased the gigantic, hundred-headed, fire-breathing Typhon down the Italian peninsula before uprooting a mountain and burying Typhon beneath what is now Etna (the eruptions of Etna are caused by the trapped Typhon). I think the locals would have noticed this.

Perhaps "a common mistake by many Christians" but not a mistake I am making as when it comes right down to it, it's not the numbers so much as the reasons why people did what they did. The Exodus is outstanding because it's claimed as national revelation. But, it's not the numbers that ultimately make the claim trustworthy, it's how a nation actually came to believe with conviction that they experienced such an event. Same with the resurrection. It's not the numbers but rather, how the people came to their conviction. In the absence of the theories proposed by the biblical texts, namely the actual events, there are simply no other theories that explain the data as well, although I'm open to your suggestions. BTW, you are talking about two completely different types of literature when you compare the Bible and Greek myths; only a select portion of the Bible claims to be myth and it predates Greek myth by several centuries.

[Jack the Bodiless]

ckweb:

I find it interesting that you describe Paul as "our oldest and seemingly most reliable witness". What the Bible DOES tell us about Paul is that, unlike the disciples, Paul never met Jesus either before or after the alleged resurrection (unless you want to count Paul's vision as a "meeting"). And how would you judge Paul as "reliable"? How can anyone tell?

Something happened to Paul on the road to Damascus (heatstroke?), he became a believer, and avidly sought out information on Jesus. I see no reason why he wouldn't simply believe whatever he was told. He was convinced that the Messiah had come and gone, and he had missed the whole thing. It would be hard to imagine a LESS reliable witness!

If the claim of "500 eyewitnesses" WAS a blatant fabrication by somebody yanking Paul's chain, this could explain why none of the gospel authors decided to mention them. Conversely, if Jesus continued to stroll the streets of Jerusalem and buy his groceries or whatever, with everyone gasping and pointing, why would the gospel authors NOT mention it?

Acts 1:15 mentions 120 "disciples" at that time. Not 500 eyewitnesses plus more who believe despite not being eyewitnesses themselves.

It is worthwhile to point out, however, that the Gospels also report that his disciples fled and abandoned him before the crucifixion. They had no expectation of a resurrection so in that respect they were not believers per se. They are described as more concerned with keeping their own lives in view of their former master's death than interested in proclaiming a myth about his resurrection.

Yes, that is what the gospels say NOW. I'm not surprised that the gospels don't chart the gradual development of the resurrection myth. What we have in the gospels is a myth developed over decades, plus an earlier indication from Paul that there was a belief in a resurrection of some sort rather earlier (but still relatively late: Paul implies that a significant fraction of his 500 have since died).

Christians throughout the centuries testify to this same experience and many testify to more: visions, conversations, etc. Of course, this information is often just dismissed as fraudulent and inadmissible because its source is Christians, which incidentally is also the reason the Bible is often dismissed. Seems odd to me that the people who have experienced the events are the ones whose testimony is dismissed . . . not sure in what other part of life people employ that type of logic.

Two-thirds of the world is non-Christian. If most theists aren't even Christian, then citing the existence of religious experiences as evidence of the resurrection is inappropriate.

But, how did this legend develop within the context of strict Jewish monotheism? The Jews did not believe in pagan mystery religions; in fact, their very way of life and all their traditions were antithetical to the development of a God-man saviour mythos.

They were, however, expecting a messiah. Desperately hoping for one, in fact. But, despite that, most did NOT believe. Christianity was more successful among the gentiles than among the Jews.

Also, why does Jesus become the focus of such "myths"? He was not the first claimant to the title of Messiah nor the last. No other comparable phenomenon developed around any other Messiah figure of the time. They died; their followers dispersed. The formula repeats over and over again; before and after the time of Jesus. Why is Jesus different?

Snowball effect. If one name becomes prominent by sheer chance, all the available messiah myths are attributed to him, making him ever more prominent. This happens with mythical figures (e.g. Celtic myths later attributed to Arthur or Merlin, and Arthur and Merlin becoming linked to each other in the same myth).

The Exodus is outstanding because it's claimed as national revelation. But, it's not the numbers that ultimately make the claim trustworthy, it's how a nation actually came to believe with conviction that they experienced such an event.

In the case of Exodus, it had centuries to become established. There was no reason NOT to believe it. Cultural myths become ingrained, a symbol of national identity. The Jews were taught that they were God's chosen people, personally rescued from the Egyptians by mighty miracles.

Same with the resurrection. It's not the numbers but rather, how the people came to their conviction. In the absence of the theories proposed by the biblical texts, namely the actual events, there are simply no other theories that explain the data as well, although I'm open to your suggestions.

Once you get beyond the actual eyewitnesses (which seems to be a rather small number), the pattern of expansion of a genuine resurrection story and a false resurrection story are identical. The audience cannot tell the difference.

BTW, you are talking about two completely different types of literature when you compare the Bible and Greek myths; only a select portion of the Bible claims to be myth and it predates Greek myth by several centuries.

What part of the Bible claims to be myth? The parables are presumably not intended to be factual accounts, but that's NT. Many people assume that the Genesis creation and the Flood are myths, but the creationists are right to point out that they are not identified as fictional in the Bible.

For that matter, what part of Greek myth claims to be myth?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
ckweb:

I find it interesting that you describe Paul as "our oldest and seemingly most reliable witness". What the Bible DOES tell us about Paul is that, unlike the disciples, Paul never met Jesus either before or after the alleged resurrection (unless you want to count Paul's vision as a "meeting"). And how would you judge Paul as "reliable"? How can anyone tell?

First, I said "seemingly." Second, I was discussing it relative to the other Gospels. Third, did you read the quote from R.E. Brown? Evidently not because one of the points in that quote is that Paul met Jesus in bodily form. Remember, the Damascus Road experience is Luke's account. Fourth, with respect to Paul's account, there is no external way to test the (scientific) reliability of his statement, which is why I said "seemingly."

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Something happened to Paul on the road to Damascus (heatstroke?), he became a believer, and avidly sought out information on Jesus. I see no reason why he wouldn't simply believe whatever he was told. He was convinced that the Messiah had come and gone, and he had missed the whole thing. It would be hard to imagine a LESS reliable witness!

I'm sorry but this is funny. So, I suppose as soon as people become believers in some thing, they lose their ability to reason and investigate. C'mon!

Also, I question the entire premise and reconstruction of Paul's state of mind.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
If the claim of "500 eyewitnesses" WAS a blatant fabrication by somebody yanking Paul's chain, this could explain why none of the gospel authors decided to mention them. Conversely, if Jesus continued to stroll the streets of Jerusalem and buy his groceries or whatever, with everyone gasping and pointing, why would the gospel authors NOT mention it?

Because the Gospel authors didn't write to prove the resurrection, they wrote so that people might come to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. Their purpose was theological. In fact, the presumption in many respects is that the audience already knew that Jesus had been resurrected; the Evangelists simply attempted to put that resurrection in the perspective of Jesus' ministry and thereby contribute to the debate over the significance of the resurrection for believers.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Acts 1:15 mentions 120 "disciples" at that time. Not 500 eyewitnesses plus more who believe despite not being eyewitnesses themselves.

Acts 1:15 is talking about a different event. I'm not sure what your point here is? Plus, I don't understand your second sentence in relation to Paul's claim.

Paul claims 500 eyewitnesses, which it appears he had the opportunity to meet. Acts does not talk about these 500 eyewitnesses. Yet, Acts also does not preclude the possibility that people other than the apostles saw Jesus and that this number could be 500.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, that is what the gospels say NOW.

What are you implying?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I'm not surprised that the gospels don't chart the gradual development of the resurrection myth. What we have in the gospels is a myth developed over decades, plus an earlier indication from Paul that there was a belief in a resurrection of some sort rather earlier (but still relatively late: Paul implies that a significant fraction of his 500 have since died).

How does a resurrection mythos develop in 25 years in the area where the person was crucified? In fact, the resurrection mythos, if the biblical evidence is allowed, developed within three days of his crucifixion! This is not gradual development.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Two-thirds of the world is non-Christian. If most theists aren't even Christian, then citing the existence of religious experiences as evidence of the resurrection is inappropriate.

Did I not point out this was an aside? It's an aside because it's not meant to formally support my argument. In order to do so, we would have to get into a discussion of the relative merit of religious encounters. I have no real desire to do so. At the same time, it is not inappropriate to cite religious experience if those religious experiences are valid.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
They were, however, expecting a messiah. Desperately hoping for one, in fact. But, despite that, most did NOT believe. Christianity was more successful among the gentiles than among the Jews.

As I pointed out, their expectation of a Messiah never resulted in the development of any tradition even resembling that which was assigned to Jesus.

Christianity was quite successful among Jews and God-Fearers (Gentiles observing Judaism without formally converting or Gentiles in the process of converting to Judaism).

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Snowball effect. If one name becomes prominent by sheer chance, all the available messiah myths are attributed to him, making him ever more prominent. This happens with mythical figures (e.g. Celtic myths later attributed to Arthur or Merlin, and Arthur and Merlin becoming linked to each other in the same myth).

Arthur and Merlin myths, I do believe, took several centuries to develop. The Jesus myth develops as quickly as three days and at its upper limit, 25-30 years.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
In the case of Exodus, it had centuries to become established. There was no reason NOT to believe it. Cultural myths become ingrained, a symbol of national identity. The Jews were taught that they were God's chosen people, personally rescued from the Egyptians by mighty miracles.

But, at the beginning it had to receive acceptance in order for it to even have centuries to establish.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Once you get beyond the actual eyewitnesses (which seems to be a rather small number), the pattern of expansion of a genuine resurrection story and a false resurrection story are identical. The audience cannot tell the difference.

One takes considerably longer, the other does not. True, the modern audience may have considerably more difficulty telling the difference if it were not for the evidence that the Resurrection mythos develops so quickly.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
What part of the Bible claims to be myth? The parables are presumably not intended to be factual accounts, but that's NT. Many people assume that the Genesis creation and the Flood are myths, but the creationists are right to point out that they are not identified as fictional in the Bible.

For that matter, what part of Greek myth claims to be myth?

Literature makes its claim by its form and style. For instance, when you write a letter, you use certain formulaic techniques that make it obvious it is a letter. Every genre has its "tells." Sometimes in the case of ancient literature, it is harder to recognize because we are not familiar with certain genre types used back then but comparative literature helps us figure this out. In the Bible, the most obvious myth stories are the Creation and Flood stories. In fact, alot of Gen 1-11 can be considered myth. Myth recurs in short spurts in Job, Psalms, and some of the Prophets. The Creationism theorists are wrong to point out that they are not identified as fictional. They are quite clearly marked as ahistorical. I'll show how if you want me to do so. . . (although I have to give priority of time to my discussion with Ethel). I'm wasting soooo much time in this thread.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I'm sorry but this is funny. So, I suppose as soon as people become believers in some thing, they lose their ability to reason and investigate. C'mon!

This happens to some theists. Creationists and presuppositionalists are common examples.

Paul claims 500 eyewitnesses, which it appears he had the opportunity to meet. Acts does not talk about these 500 eyewitnesses. Yet, Acts also does not preclude the possibility that people other than the apostles saw Jesus and that this number could be 500.

However, Acts 1 is supposed to be an account of "all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up": an account of a 40-day period which fails to mention any public appearances.

How does a resurrection mythos develop in 25 years in the area where the person was crucified? In fact, the resurrection mythos, if the biblical evidence is allowed, developed within three days of his crucifixion! This is not gradual development.

Very easily, in a world with no reliable news media.

Consider the events of September 11th. At one point, there were allegedly fourteen hijacked airliners and five crashes, leaving nine still in the air. There was also a car bomb outside the State Department. The Pentagon crash was variously described as an airliner, a light aircraft, and a helicopter. Now imagine no TV, no newspapers, no Internet. This mishmash of fact and fiction would eventually settle down into a consistent version of the tale, but not necessarily a factual version (there are still claims of demolition charges or secret disintegration weapons being used on the WTC towers). The process of ironing out inconsistencies in Christianity was still going on centuries later, with entire books being accepted or thrown out by popular vote.

Once you get beyond the actual eyewitnesses (which seems to be a rather small number), the pattern of expansion of a genuine resurrection story and a false resurrection story are identical. The audience cannot tell the difference.

One takes considerably longer, the other does not. True, the modern audience may have considerably more difficulty telling the difference if it were not for the evidence that the Resurrection mythos develops so quickly.

Not very much longer, however. Rumors would begin to circulate within days, and become widespread within weeks. The development of a consistent version of the story could be well underway within a year. After 25 years, the initial delay hardly matters.

Literature makes its claim by its form and style. For instance, when you write a letter, you use certain formulaic techniques that make it obvious it is a letter. Every genre has its "tells." Sometimes in the case of ancient literature, it is harder to recognize because we are not familiar with certain genre types used back then but comparative literature helps us figure this out. In the Bible, the most obvious myth stories are the Creation and Flood stories. In fact, alot of Gen 1-11 can be considered myth. Myth recurs in short spurts in Job, Psalms, and some of the Prophets. The Creationism theorists are wrong to point out that they are not identified as fictional. They are quite clearly marked as ahistorical. I'll show how if you want me to do so. . .

That would be useful. I've attempted to raise this issue with creationists, but I coudn't back it up.

But could the stylistic differences be due to the extreme age (and, for the Flood myth at least, foreign origin) of the account?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
This happens to some theists. Creationists and presuppositionalists are common examples.

Touche. But, I think we should give Paul more credit. I think he amply demonstrates his intelligence and reasonableness in his letters.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
However, Acts 1 is supposed to be an account of "all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up": an account of a 40-day period which fails to mention any public appearances.

Actually, the statement you quote by Luke applies to his previous book, the Gospel:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

The operative word is began. He never indicates that he finishes this task. Also, given that Luke does not actually communicate "all" Jesus did or taught in his Gospel up to the point that Gospel ends (as evidenced by Matthew and John), I think it is safe to presume that this is a touch of hyperbole on Luke's part. Literalists might have a problem with that interpretation but I think the biblical texts bear it out.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Very easily, in a world with no reliable news media.

Consider the events of September 11th. At one point, there were allegedly fourteen hijacked airliners and five crashes, leaving nine still in the air. There was also a car bomb outside the State Department. The Pentagon crash was variously described as an airliner, a light aircraft, and a helicopter. Now imagine no TV, no newspapers, no Internet. This mishmash of fact and fiction would eventually settle down into a consistent version of the tale, but not necessarily a factual version (there are still claims of demolition charges or secret disintegration weapons being used on the WTC towers). The process of ironing out inconsistencies in Christianity was still going on centuries later, with entire books being accepted or thrown out by popular vote.

You have a point about reliability in the absence of news media but I think your illustration better serves my argument than yours:

Can you imagine New York awash with rumours about an attack on the WTC in the absence of that attack? How long would those rumours have lasted before someone said, "Hey, look up at the skyline, the towers are right there! They are just fine!" In order for the rumours of a resurrection to start, something extraordinary enough must have occurred to justify them. This, I think, is why Ethel claims Jesus didn't actually die in the crucifixion. How do you propose the rumours started in the absence of an actual resurrection? If an actual resurrection occurred, you'd have all sorts of rumours circulating that would eventually result in voluminous amounts of literature (the uptake to writing it down would take longer in a culture as illiterate as Palestine). Because of the lack of a reliable news media, this literature would contain inconsistencies: some things would be reliable, others not. Hey, wait a minute, that's exactly what happened. Hmmm. . .

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Not very much longer, however. Rumors would begin to circulate within days, and become widespread within weeks. The development of a consistent version of the story could be well underway within a year. After 25 years, the initial delay hardly matters.

Again, how do you propose the rumours started in the absence of an actual resurrection?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
That would be useful. I've attempted to raise this issue with creationists, but I coudn't back it up.

But could the stylistic differences be due to the extreme age (and, for the Flood myth at least, foreign origin) of the account?

Here's some preliminary insights into the structure of Genesis 1 that indicate its artistic construction (rather than an alleged attempt to develop a historical record):

In Gen 1:2, we read, "The earth was without form and void." Note this description has two parts. The earth lacks form and it is empty.

Now, let's look at the way creation is described:

Day One: The Separation of Light and Darkness

Day Two: The Separation of the Waters, Creating Sky and Sea

Day Three: The Separation of the Waters of the Sea, Creating Land

The first three days all involve the creation of form. Now, let's move on to the rest of the days:

Day Four: The Creation of the Greater and Lesser Nights to Rule Day and Night

Day Five: The Creation of Animals that Fill the Waters and the Sky

Day Six: The Creation of Land Animals and Humans to Fill the Land.

The second three days all involve the filling of the void and it is presented so that the days exactly parallel one another. Notice the clear parallels between day one and four, two and five, and three and six. By the sixth day, the earth is no longer formless and void. Is this an historical record of events or an artful (and skillful) presentation of creation?

Also, note how the author carefully refuses to name the Greater (as Sun) and Lesser (as Moon) Light, thereby stripping them of any divinity and placing them clearly under the creative hand of God. Also, note how the author clearly controls the creation of the "great sea monsters" rather than fighting with them in an epic battle that results in a chaotic creative process. Also, note how humans are given pride of place in the narrative, being given the most narrative attention, being the pinnacle of God's creative work, and being described as "very good" as opposed to the pronouncement of "good" on every other day. All these elements clearly polemicize other creation myths of the time (i.e. Atrahasis).

In sum, Gen 1 clearly functions as a theologically driven polemic against other creation myths. Its careful structure evince an author unconcerned with an actual report of events. To drive the point home further, this creation story is set right alongside a second creation story that directly contradicts it, if they were regarded as historical reports. In Gen 2, there is a different order to creation and the mechanism is completely different. Moreover, man is created before woman (as opposed to Gen 1 where they are created at the same time). If the redactor thought these accounts were historical records, one must posit a really dense redactor who did not see these inconsistencies.

Gen 2 clearly exhibits the form of an Hebrew Aetiology. This is obvious by Gen 2:23-25, esp vv.24-25. Note the little explanation of why men and women marry that concludes the narrative. This provides a key to how Gen 2 functioned in Hebrew culture. Children would ask their parents, why do men and women get married? And then the parents would answer: "Oh, this is why, 'In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens . . .' The historical nature of the story was insignificant. It was simply a way to explain a cultural reality.

The mythic qualities of Gen 2-3 are made more apparent by the anthropomorphic descriptions of God. He walks, has internal monologues, asks questions that suggest he is not omnipotent, etc. etc. Furthermore, we once again see the aetiological nature of Gen 3 in the curses God pronounces in 3:14-19. They explain why people hate snakes, why women have pain in childbearing, why married people fight, why harvesting is so difficult, the fate of humans after they die, etc. etc.

The only unimpeachable historical statement of Gen 1-3, at least as Hebrews would have seen it, was that God created the world. This they took for granted. The rest of it is simply there to provide meaning and purpose to present day realities. Certainly, many would have actually believed the myths to be factual but this derives from their ignorance rather than the nature of the stories themselves. The nature of stories is clearly ahistorical.

On the Flood Story, one of the most telling indications of its ahistorical nature is that it interweaves two separate accounts. You can find an explanation of this in some of my earlier posts with Ethel. I even breakdown the narrative into its two sources and editorial insertions. There are also further points that can be made. For instance, it functions in part as an aetiology for the rainbow. It also explains why humans eat meat when God, according to Gen 1, only commanded the plants as food. The narrative also exhibits the same type of anthropomorphisms as in Gen 2-3.

One of the sharpest points can also be made by comparing the style of Gen 1-11 to the style of Gen 12-50. There is a fairly sharp change, which I won't get into for now. Hopefully, this helps.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Again, how do you propose the rumours started in the absence of an actual resurrection?

A desire to give the story a happy ending.

Consider what Christianity would look like without the resurrection. God sends a great teacher to preach an important message to humanity, but we nail him to a tree. The End.

Think how bewildered and helpless his followers would feel. Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? Surely our divine leader must be planning another miracle? If Osiris and Mithras can come back from the dead, surely our divine leader can?

Please, God, don't let it end like this...

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

A desire to give the story a happy ending.

Consider what Christianity would look like without the resurrection. God sends a great teacher to preach an important message to humanity, but we nail him to a tree. The End.

Think how bewildered and helpless his followers would feel. Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? Surely our divine leader must be planning another miracle? If Osiris and Mithras can come back from the dead, surely our divine leader can?

Please, God, don't let it end like this...

It wasn't a story until after the resurrection. And you really haven't addressed the question: Again, how do you propose the rumours started in the absence of an actual resurrection, especially in the place where it happened? How were these rumours sustained in the absence of facts?

BTW, most great teachers died. Moses and the prophets, David and the good kings of Judah, the disciples and the apostles. In other Jewish sects, similarly great teachers died without a resurrection mythos. Look at many, if not most, of the other religions of the world. Their teachers die.

Greek/Roman myths, rising and dying God myths do not explain and almost certainly didn't influence Jewish culture and the development of a God-man savior, resurrection mythos. Hellenism had its effects but it was limited in religious areas by strict Jewish monotheism.

[Jack the Bodiless]

It wasn't a story until after the resurrection. And you really haven't addressed the question: Again, how do you propose the rumours started in the absence of an actual resurrection, especially in the place where it happened? How were these rumours sustained in the absence of facts?

BTW, most great teachers died. Moses and the prophets, David and the good kings of Judah, the disciples and the apostles. In other Jewish sects, similarly great teachers died without a resurrection mythos. Look at many, if not most, of the other religions of the world. Their teachers die.

But they didn't die like Jesus did. Jesus died young, and he died in disgrace. Divine religious leaders are supposed to either die of old age after a lifetime of achievements, or ascend bodily into Heaven. This looks like an attempt to change the ending.

Especially as the alternative ending is placed suspiciously soon after the crucifixion: "Jesus died, but it was OK because he came back to life and ascended into Heaven, The End". Little more than a month separated the two events.

How did the rumors of Elvis being alive get started? Maybe somebody saw a guy who looked like Jesus, and wishful thinking did the rest.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But they didn't die like Jesus did. Jesus died young, and he died in disgrace. Divine religious leaders are supposed to either die of old age after a lifetime of achievements, or ascend bodily into Heaven. This looks like an attempt to change the ending.

Especially as the alternative ending is placed suspiciously soon after the crucifixion: "Jesus died, but it was OK because he came back to life and ascended into Heaven, The End". Little more than a month separated the two events.

Well, I have three responses:

(1) So, you are suggesting the disciples knew that Jesus had not risen from the dead. Then, why did they die as martyrs? It is one thing to die for something you believe in but didn't actually see; it's quite another to die for something you know you made up. The former happens; the latter rarely, if ever, happens.

(2) A month is still alot of time. Why not have him ascend at the crucifixion, like the Gnostics believe? Or, why not posit a merely spiritual resurrection rather than a bodily one? Either way, you have not accounted for how the disciples came to believe in a bodily resurrection if none occurred.

(3) Jesus was not the only spiritual leader to die early and die an ignominious death. In the OT, we have the example of Josiah. Also, many of the would-be messiahs before and after the time of Jesus died young and suffered ignominious deaths. In fact, some were even crucified too. So, again, what makes Jesus special?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
How did the rumors of Elvis being alive get started? Maybe somebody saw a guy who looked like Jesus, and wishful thinking did the rest.

There are several problems here. First, Elvis' death was not a public event except insofar as it was reported by the media. Jesus died in plain view of the people. Elvis died in a private residence, hence the development of rumours that he did not die. Second, the rumours surrounding Elvis are that he never died not that he was resurrected. The difference is huge. Third, the Elvis rumours never spawned a new religious movement, martyrs and all, who challenged the religious and political authorities. Fourth, the Elvis rumours have never achieved any real penetration and have not been perceived as credible by the society-at-large. Quite clearly, the opposite is true in the case of Jesus. The rumours of Jesus' resurrection penetrated society at their very source (in Jerusalem) and expanded outward throughout the Roman Empire and even into regions beyond such as India and parts of Africa outside the Roman controlled areas. It is certainly true that people at the time of Jesus were ignorant of science but that does not mean they were idiots! The Jesus movement gained an enormous amount of credibility and expanded very quickly. I can see no adequate explanation for this phenomenon short of an actual resurrection. An actual resurrection explains the change in the disciples, the appeal of the new religion to people with beliefs in many respects antithetical to the central claims of the new religion, its expansion through the Roman world and beyond, the enormous amount of literature written about a previously insignificant individual, the martyrs dying in the same century as the events they believe in happened, etc. etc.