Beginning of Christianity
 

When I was in College I took a course called “Historical Jesus” (girlfriend at the time was taking the course). I seldom went, but did attend the last day of class when the professor gave his take on what history tells us about the ultimate question of Jesus status as supernatural figure. I will do my best to paraphrase.

He said that Jesus lived in a time where cooky crackpot alternative apocalyptic nuts roamed the streets—mostly without any significant followers. When Jesus, who wasn’t too far from this mold, actually started to develop a following and began to call into question the Jewish Clergy, he was discredited to the public, and put to Death as a threat to the order. Here is where things become interesting. After Jesus died, Jesus's followers (none of whom was previously impressive in the slightest) by all rights should have disbanded, lucky to have their skins intact, as Jesus at this point was not a popular guy. Instead, they claim he was resurrected, and at great cost to themselves and without any financial backing or incentive became absolutely devoted zealots with his ressurection as the foundation of their belief. His conclusion was that the only explanation was the disciples truly believed in the resurrection.

Assuming this is a reasonable accounting of the “history” involved, why did Jesus’ disciples insist he had resurrected and risk their necks for seemingly no gain and a lot of hardship when they would have been so much better off slinking away?

This isn’t meant as a “proof” or to convince anyone of anything, it is just something that seems interesting about the origins of Christianity.

Anyone else find this sufficiently puzzling to comment?

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

If we assume he lived (which is hotly debated in itself):

1. It can have been random chance striking gold.
2. It could be he had the same charisma and control over his group as leaders of some of the more extreme religious sects today. Him claiming he would be resurrected could be sufficient itself to make them believe it.
3. One or more of the followers could be suffering from heavy psychosis, making the story 'believable' for the others. This is not an uncommon thing in small extreme religious sects. (Holding that the leader of your 13-man group is the son of god qualifies as extreme btw).
4. The story could have been altered many years later to fit the story better, the 'true' facts may be completely different. Since we don't have genuine proof of what happened in those days we are relying on the bible alone to say what happened before the resurrection. It may be a flawed source.

I'll agree that it is a neat little puzzle, but there are worse ones out there. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

I don't find it puzzling at all. Muhammed did similar highly impressive things, but Christians never seem to want to talk about him.

As for the professor's points - almost all of the things he claims have no independent historical evidence apart from the bible. If someone called Jesus did exist, we know virtually nothing reliable about him.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming this is a reasonable accounting of the “history” involved, why did Jesus’ disciples insist he had resurrected and risk their necks for seemingly no gain and a lot of hardship when they would have been so much better off slinking away?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of Falun Gong? Of Buddhist monks? They suffer massive persecution without any promise of reward. Jesus promised eternal life to those who followed him, and forgiveness from the jealous, spiteful, scary God portrayed in the OT. Is it that surprising that some were taken by his message - especially if he performed convincing miracles?

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming this is a reasonable accounting of the “history” involved, why did Jesus’ disciples insist he had resurrected and risk their necks for seemingly no gain and a lot of hardship when they would have been so much better off slinking away?

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing we independently know is that a certain religious groups became an occasional problem for Roman authorities some years after Jesus's death. It's likely many believed he rose from the dead, if that story was told. Just as millions today belief absolutely in the the blatant fraud, the Sai Baba, even in this modern age.

I wrote a piece a while back about various scenarios of how the Jesus stories and following could have come about. There are many plausible explanations that don't involve a corpse coming back to life.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

Well here is a wikipedia quote:

Re: Jesus as Myth here is an excerpt

"Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[73]

The non-historicity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians"


It is rather odd that people keep making this myth argument around the person of Jesus. They don't seem to do it around Mohammed or Buddha. They just single Jesus out.

It is possible to look up many of the old Hebrew Kings listed in the Old Testament and find Ahab, Hezekiah, David...all listed as actual historical personages. If you take a look at archaeology the History channel has several different programs devoted to biblical archaeology. They have one that explains how volcanoes figured into the Exodus from Egypt plagues, they have one where they found the city of Jericho (with evidence the walls actually tumbled down).

Quote 2:
from: http://www.christiananswers.net/christmas/skeptic.html

Prophecies from the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Nearly 300 predictions from hundreds of years before his birth were acknowledged by rabbis as having been made in reference to a coming deliverer they called the Messiah.

These predictions included Bethlehem as the place of his birth (Micah 5:2), that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint Greek translation c.a. 250 B.C.E.), and that the time of his birth would be just before Israel lost their sovereign power as a nation (Genesis 49:10)--this took place just after the beginning of the First Century C.E. when Archelaus took the throne.

It is significant that when Israel cried, "Woe to us, for the scepter has been removed and the Messiah has not come!" (Talmud, Babylon, Sanhedrin), Jesus was walking in their midst.


It was also predicted that he would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5,6), that he would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9), would die a dreadful, yet substitutionary death (Isaiah 53) by crucifixion (Psalm 22:14-17), a form of death not even known at the time of the psalm's composition, and that he would be raised from the dead (Psalm 16:9f).

No one else in history can remotely claim to be the object of such prophecies except Jesus of Nazareth.

Astonishingly, the chances of fulfilling just eight specific prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 notes a panel of scientists with the American Scientific Affiliation. See Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (Nelson, 1999), p. 164f. See also an interview with Rev. Louis Lapides in "The Fingerprint Evidence: Did Jesus--and Jesus Alone--Match the Identity of the Messiah?" found in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, (Zondervan, 1998), p.171f. Lapides is a Jew who moved from agnosticism to belief in Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

It is rather odd that people keep making this myth argument around the person of Jesus. They don't seem to do it around Mohammed or Buddha. They just single Jesus out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The historical case for Mohammed is much stronger - though disputed with some. Also Mohammed was seen as a prophet, not the son of god walking around waking people from the dead and being resurrected, so the burden for a proper historical footprint on Jesus is big.

I also think you're stretching the 'it is because we are Christian' thing, that's just because most theists on this board are Christians it will seem that way.

As for Buddha, there have been several Buddhas. In most buddism Buddha is a title, not a specific being.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

My understanding is that there were many many historical accounts written about Jesus, that predate the Bible (which only contains 4 of these "gospels". See the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these accounts diverge widely but there are consistancies as well as other corroborating accounts that are not of a religious nature.

I would be surprised that amongst historians that there is any real dispute of the existance, however, I would agree that very little that is reliable is known about him-- other than he had followers, and he was put to death.

Historically, my impression was that Jesus did not claim to be a messiah or promise "eternal life" at least during his life, or even claim to be the son of God. Had any of these things occurred I think he would have been considered a much greater crackpot and never gained any traction at all. I also don't think there is any truly historic evidence of miracles. I do think he offered a tremendously populist message to the people-- which had the potential to resonate. But that doesn't explain the whole ressurection scenario. Is your supposition that the disciples simply made up the resurrection?

With respect to the monks you describe, they are trained and taught and indoctrinated to become what they become. My impression is that historically, Jesus followers took his teaching and were inspired. It really doesn't seem quite the same thing.

I would be interested in the piece you wrote.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Astonishingly, the chances of fulfilling just eight specific prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 notes a panel of scientists with the American Scientific Affiliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, viewing the gospels "historically" the conclusion of the course work was that the Gospels were tortuously written to make it appear as though Jesus was a fulfillment of prophesies, to the point that the "historical account of Jesus" even has Jesus going to Egypt to fulfill a prophecy that clearly purtained to Moses and not the Messiah. The conclusion was that the fulfillment of prophecies was historically concocted.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

Many people believe that disjointed accounts of various prophets of the time may have culminated to be what we now know as the character of Jesus.

As for the all the prophecies, it is no coincidence people would apply such dates and concepts to their next 'messiah'. It is because many previous religious personas were born on Dec 25th, had 12 followers, died and rose again on the 3rd day, etc. Just look at Mithras or a dozen other ancient characters. Not to mention, religious people were always looking for and speculating on a messiah, as they still do (sometimes in the case of the antichrist). Then some men go out and take a baby, call him God's son and raise him as such. If you were born into this environment, you'd probably believe you were the son of god too.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

Quote: I don't find it puzzling at all. Muhammed did similar highly impressive things, but Christians never seem to want to talk about him


We don't need to. "Everything ended on the cross". This is a quote from 2 Arabs who converted to Christianity who I listened to on a radio a few weeks back.

The bible basically says to believe on Christ. Once you're convinced then actually no comparison is necessary. We recognize how high Christ's claim is and we are to beware of changed messages from later prophets. One thing is quite obvious to any Christian who looks at Muslims they have more rituals to obey. They pray 5 times a day facing Mecca. Christians are no longer to be bound by a high degree of ritualism. All of the kosher rules of Leviticus have been lifted from us. Our rituals are kept to a minimum compared to Islam's. We're suppose to live it (be born again) and concentrate on spiritual change.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for Buddha, there have been several Buddhas. In most buddism Buddha is a title, not a specific being.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the existence of Gautama, "the" Buddha, is questioned plenty.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

I still don't get bible literalists. The ones I speak to go about saying the bible is literal, there is a hell, etc then want to ignore kosher eating, the acceptance of slavery/selling off your daughter/stoning disobedient children, talking snakes and the ridiculous sham that is Noah's Ark.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

Prophecy didn't just relate to the Messiah it also pertained to other events. Sounds like your course was biased. I find Louis Lapides convincing. He was a Hebrew that converted after finding what he terms "the fingerprint evidence". Hebrews converting to Christianity are a rarity. There seems to be almost a Jewish cultural stigmatism against a Jew converting to Christianity yet he did it.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

I know I respond to a lot of your posts, and this is not hostility on my part I just find them so weird sometimes, esp this stigma thing. Do you believe there is no Christian cultural stigma versus converting to other religions?

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

There definitely is, atleast in the states. Even moving from one sect to another is stigmatized by many. I once told my father I was dating a girl who was catholic, he could only respond with "catholics are a backward people" as if they were some tribal hunter-gatherer society.

Much worse here in the states is the stigma surrounding atheists. My friend was talking to my new gf's mother (though he is a closer friend of my gf, so is protective of her). He said of me "I really like him, he's a good guy. The only thing I don't like about him is he is an atheist." As if me being an atheist distinguishes me from every other person in society in my day-to-day behaviors/activities. In reality, I am no different than every other "christian" who doesn't go to church, besides the fact that I don't cite morals based on the appeal to authority fallacy (which I posit is a good thing). Many people here in the south simply find atheists completely radical and in an extreme minority, not knowing that many countries in Europe are near half or even majority atheist/agnostic and the growth of which within the US is quite astonishing.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many people here in the south

[/ QUOTE ]

sympathies.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
After Jesus died, Jesus's followers (none of whom was previously impressive in the slightest) by all rights should have disbanded, lucky to have their skins intact, as Jesus at this point was not a popular guy. Instead, they claim he was resurrected, and at great cost to themselves and without any financial backing or incentive became absolutely devoted zealots with his ressurection as the foundation of their belief. His conclusion was that the only explanation was the disciples truly believed in the resurrection.


[/ QUOTE ]

This professor has obviously never heard of cognitive dissonance. Classic psychology study by Leon Festinger:

[ QUOTE ]

In the course of his investigations Festinger, a trained psychologist, actually infiltrated the cult himself and was thus a first hand witness to the groups behaviour in the wake of the non-fulfilment of their doomsday prophecy.

Given the reality of Earth's survival the dissonance of the thought between prior belief and failed fulfillment was typically rationalised by the cult members not so much through dismissal of the original prophecy as through modification of that prophecy. That is to say that the cult members tended to accept that the aliens had actually saved the entire world as their route to ensuring the survival of the cult.


Festinger suggested that to rationalize, or change beliefs and asttitudes, was an easier route to resolve the stress associated with cogitive dissonance than a complete dismissal of their individual acceptance of the original prophecy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Prophecies from the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Nearly 300 predictions from hundreds of years before his birth were acknowledged by rabbis as having been made in reference to a coming deliverer they called the Messiah.

These predictions included Bethlehem as the place of his birth (Micah 5:2), that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint Greek translation c.a. 250 B.C.E.), and that the time of his birth would be just before Israel lost their sovereign power as a nation (Genesis 49:10)--this took place just after the beginning of the First Century C.E. when Archelaus took the throne.

It is significant that when Israel cried, "Woe to us, for the scepter has been removed and the Messiah has not come!" (Talmud, Babylon, Sanhedrin), Jesus was walking in their midst.


It was also predicted that he would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5,6), that he would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9), would die a dreadful, yet substitutionary death (Isaiah 53) by crucifixion (Psalm 22:14-17), a form of death not even known at the time of the psalm's composition, and that he would be raised from the dead (Psalm 16:9f).

No one else in history can remotely claim to be the object of such prophecies except Jesus of Nazareth.

Astonishingly, the chances of fulfilling just eight specific prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 notes a panel of scientists with the American Scientific Affiliation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately you can't get around the problem that it is much more plausible that the authors of the Gospels made up the stories to fulfill these old prophecies.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

I know I respond to a lot of your posts, and this is not hostility on my part I just find them so weird sometimes, esp this stigma thing. Do you believe there is no Christian cultural stigma versus converting to other religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

There very well could be and the extent of it could vary by individual and religious group. But I found Lapides conversion remarkable because I've known a lot of Jews but never knew one that converted to Christianity from Judaism. Conversion to other religions IS rare for Jews. You see a lot of sect crossovers with Christians but not Jewish conversion to Christianity.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

I know I respond to a lot of your posts, and this is not hostility on my part I just find them so weird sometimes, esp this stigma thing. Do you believe there is no Christian cultural stigma versus converting to other religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link on what we were discussing.

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/louis_lapides.aspx

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Prophecies from the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Nearly 300 predictions from hundreds of years before his birth were acknowledged by rabbis as having been made in reference to a coming deliverer they called the Messiah.

These predictions included Bethlehem as the place of his birth (Micah 5:2), that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint Greek translation c.a. 250 B.C.E.), and that the time of his birth would be just before Israel lost their sovereign power as a nation (Genesis 49:10)--this took place just after the beginning of the First Century C.E. when Archelaus took the throne.

It is significant that when Israel cried, "Woe to us, for the scepter has been removed and the Messiah has not come!" (Talmud, Babylon, Sanhedrin), Jesus was walking in their midst.


It was also predicted that he would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5,6), that he would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9), would die a dreadful, yet substitutionary death (Isaiah 53) by crucifixion (Psalm 22:14-17), a form of death not even known at the time of the psalm's composition, and that he would be raised from the dead (Psalm 16:9f).

No one else in history can remotely claim to be the object of such prophecies except Jesus of Nazareth.

Astonishingly, the chances of fulfilling just eight specific prophecies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 notes a panel of scientists with the American Scientific Affiliation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately you can't get around the problem that it is much more plausible that the authors of the Gospels made up the stories to fulfill these old prophecies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that. Here's Lapides himself on the subject.

http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/pub...essiah-631.php

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After Jesus died, Jesus's followers (none of whom was previously impressive in the slightest) by all rights should have disbanded, lucky to have their skins intact, as Jesus at this point was not a popular guy. Instead, they claim he was resurrected, and at great cost to themselves and without any financial backing or incentive became absolutely devoted zealots with his ressurection as the foundation of their belief. His conclusion was that the only explanation was the disciples truly believed in the resurrection.


[/ QUOTE ]

This professor has obviously never heard of cognitive dissonance. Classic psychology study by Leon Festinger:

[ QUOTE ]

In the course of his investigations Festinger, a trained psychologist, actually infiltrated the cult himself and was thus a first hand witness to the groups behaviour in the wake of the non-fulfilment of their doomsday prophecy.

Given the reality of Earth's survival the dissonance of the thought between prior belief and failed fulfillment was typically rationalised by the cult members not so much through dismissal of the original prophecy as through modification of that prophecy. That is to say that the cult members tended to accept that the aliens had actually saved the entire world as their route to ensuring the survival of the cult.


Festinger suggested that to rationalize, or change beliefs and asttitudes, was an easier route to resolve the stress associated with cogitive dissonance than a complete dismissal of their individual acceptance of the original prophecy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an interesting explanation, but I think it suffers somewhat because the disciples entire course of action seems to flow from actually witnessing a resurrected Christ, rather than just some rationalizing paradigm shift. It was the resurrection itself and not Jesus's teachings which seemed to spur them on. Secondly, it is not clear at all that they had any agenda prior to the death of Jesus other than that they were followers of Jesus. Something about his death (or ressurection) seemed to inspire them and set them on a new level. Moreover-- and admittedly I think this is a lot less "historically" established, but I do not believe that either Jesus or his disciples went around proclaiming he was the son of God for any length of time prior to his execution. I think this largely came after. I don't think being the son of God was at all essential to Jesus ministry during his life.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that. Here's Lapides himself on the subject.

http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/pub...essiah-631.php

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the only parts from that article that deals with my objection:
[ QUOTE ]

But that objection didn't fly any further than the previous one. "In God's wisdom, he created checks and balances both inside and outside the Christian community," Lapides explained. "When the Gospels were being circulated, there were people living who had been around when all these things happened. Someone would have said to Matthew, ?You know it didn't happen that way. We're trying to communicate a life of righteousness and truth, so don't taint it with a lie.'

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, he is appealing to God's wisdom which I find amusing. Secondly, this is assuming that those who were contemporaries of Jesus would know all the intricate details of his life and not of just certain isolated instances, which is much more likely. Would the people who were still alive from Jesus's time be witnesses to more than one or two events from his. It is also assuming that those who did have first hand knowledge of Jesus's life somehow were familiar with Mathew's work and were "proofreading" it.

[ QUOTE ]

"Besides," he added, "why would Matthew have fabricated fulfilled prophecies and then be willing to be put to death for following someone who he secretly knew was really not the Messiah? That wouldn't make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Perhaps because he believed that the prophecies were irrelevant but that it might prevent people from believing in Jesus? If he believed that Jesus actually was the Messiah and that the prophecies weren't binding, why would he not fabricate fulfilled prophecies?

[ QUOTE ]

"What's more, the Jewish community would have jumped on any
opportunity to discredit the Gospels by pointing out falsehoods. They would have said, ?I was there, and Jesus' bones were broken by the Romans during the crucifixion,'" Lapides said. "But even though the Jewish Talmud refers to Jesus in derogatory ways, it never once makes the claim that the fulfillment of prophecies was falsified. Not one time."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain the Jewish community did try to discredit the Gospels. And this also goes back to the assumption that there would be enough people around who not only were first hand witnesses of Jesus's life, but that they had full memories of these events, they were aware of Matthew's writings, they believed it was important to discredit the Gospel, etc. etc.

Sorry if I'm not convinced, but your rebuttal is not very compelling.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

That is an interesting explanation, but I think it suffers somewhat because the disciples entire course of action seems to flow from actually witnessing a resurrected Christ, rather than just some rationalizing paradigm shift. It was the resurrection itself and not Jesus's teachings which seemed to spur them on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have in claiming this? Couldn't a resurrected Christ be a vision in a dream or something similar? How would their actions be any different if it was actually his teachings that spurred them on?


[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, it is not clear at all that they had any agenda prior to the death of Jesus other than that they were followers of Jesus. Something about his death (or ressurection) seemed to inspire them and set them on a new level.

[/ QUOTE ]

What agenda did I mention? If they believed in his cause and it seemed to come to an end, it would make sense that they would experience cognitive dissonance. They "knew" that his cause was righteous and the way to God, but he was killed. If his cause were true, it shouldn't be able to die away. So, in their minds, there must be some way for his message to carry on.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover-- and admittedly I think this is a lot less "historically" established, but I do not believe that either Jesus or his disciples went around proclaiming he was the son of God for any length of time prior to his execution. I think this largely came after. I don't think being the son of God was at all essential to Jesus ministry during his life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I mentioned anything about this. How does this connect?

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would be surprised that amongst historians that there is any real dispute of the existance,

[/ QUOTE ]
There has been in the past, although at the present these people are a small minority (even though now new evidence has become available). But their reasoning for the historicity is largely conjecture and their points can be explained just as easily by considering the Jesus story as a collection of oral histories and the many "messiahs" and holy men of the age. The independent historical accounts are very flimsy - a few mentions decades or a century later, derived wholly from Christian sources who copied the original works many times, and one of which is almost certainly a forgery in the eyes of historians.

[ QUOTE ]
Is your supposition that the disciples simply made up the resurrection?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. See my story below. There are so many scenarios where people believe unreasonable things, especially those that have invested their life and their neck in the truth of something. This happens even in these modern times. I think people also greatly underestimate human stupidity and their ability to genuinely believe all kinds of unsupported notions. The Age of Enlightenment has only been on us a couple of hundred years. And I linked the Sai Baba earlier - he's a very instructive read for the kind of topics you bring up in the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
With respect to the monks you describe, they are trained and taught and indoctrinated to become what they become. My impression is that historically, Jesus followers took his teaching and were inspired. It really doesn't seem quite the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair point. But I'm sure you can find modern analogues - the Sai Baba in India or any number of faith healers in Mexico are excellent examples of this phenomena in even an educated populace. If you haven't had the opportunity to see this with your own eyes, it's worth doing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in the piece you wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here it is. It's a bit touchy feely as it's written to someone who thinks the only possibilities are that Jesus was resurrected or that it was the greatest fraud in history.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is an interesting explanation, but I think it suffers somewhat because the disciples entire course of action seems to flow from actually witnessing a resurrected Christ, rather than just some rationalizing paradigm shift. It was the resurrection itself and not Jesus's teachings which seemed to spur them on. Secondly, it is not clear at all that they had any agenda prior to the death of Jesus other than that they were followers of Jesus. Something about his death (or ressurection) seemed to inspire them and set them on a new level. Moreover-- and admittedly I think this is a lot less "historically" established, but I do not believe that either Jesus or his disciples went around proclaiming he was the son of God for any length of time prior to his execution. I think this largely came after. I don't think being the son of God was at all essential to Jesus ministry during his life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You speculate about the motivations and actions of the followers of Jesus. On what basis? That of the Bible? If we accept that as evidence then why are we rejecting the part where Jesus claims to be the son of God and where that claim is an important part of his position?

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is an interesting explanation, but I think it suffers somewhat because the disciples entire course of action seems to flow from actually witnessing a resurrected Christ, rather than just some rationalizing paradigm shift. It was the resurrection itself and not Jesus's teachings which seemed to spur them on. Secondly, it is not clear at all that they had any agenda prior to the death of Jesus other than that they were followers of Jesus. Something about his death (or ressurection) seemed to inspire them and set them on a new level. Moreover-- and admittedly I think this is a lot less "historically" established, but I do not believe that either Jesus or his disciples went around proclaiming he was the son of God for any length of time prior to his execution. I think this largely came after. I don't think being the son of God was at all essential to Jesus ministry during his life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You speculate about the motivations and actions of the followers of Jesus. On what basis? That of the Bible? If we accept that as evidence then why are we rejecting the part where Jesus claims to be the son of God and where that claim is an important part of his position?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to cop out like this, but I am not a bible scholar and I am going by memory, but my recollection was that Jesus predominantly claims he is the "son of man". It is only at the very end that he starts to say differently.

I don't consider the bible to necessarily be an accurate historical record of Jesus life. Far from it. I don't mean to presume too much about the motivations of the disciples, if anything, I am trying to understand their actions after Jesus cruxifiction. Obviously this is a puzzle with very incomplete information. I'm mostly interested in plausible explanations for what we do know historically. Phil made a nice stab at in in the post he linked to. But I don't think any of his scenarios really explain the metamorphisis of the disciples.

I guess the bottom line is I can't really dismiss as implausible the hypothesis that the Disciples genuinely believed that Jesus was resurrected and spoke to them after his death.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

But the Bible is also the only source you have for the actions of those disciples (I'm including the apocrypha when I say "Bible"). And it's second-hand.

It's a plausible hypothesis, but it's not very testable and it doesn't indicate much.

Personally I'm in the "Jesus led a cult" camp. I find it much less surprising that his followers remained loyal after his death than that (for example) the followers of Jim Jones killed themselves at his command.

Psychology also established that certain factors (authority and conformity in particular) can cause people to doubt their own memories and factual evidence. I think there's significant evidence that false memories can arise in certain situations (but I'm not too familiar with it). So it's certainly possible that some of his disciples really believed that they saw him after he died. I think one of two things is more likely, though - either someone in Jesus' group had some power they didn't want to give up (and perhaps they even used the name of Jesus to increase their power over his followers) and so fabricated the resurrection story, or it's a matter of cumulative embellishment as in the game of "telephone."

The gospels were written decades after Jesus died. And even in the gospels themselves, the description of the resurrection is inconsistent - earlier gospels describe it as a straightforward event, but later gospels add angels and earthquakes and other fireworks. My guess is that the whole story of Jesus as we know it is the product of oral transmissions that became more and more exaggerated over time. The original story of the resurrection? People very often have experiences of being "contacted" by loved ones after their death, and Jesus almost certainly had some very devoted followers. I'm guessing that some of those followers had similar experiences of Jesus and believe he wss communicating with them after his death - perhaps even "telling them" that he was alive. These people could easily have ended up being eyewitnesses to a physical resurrection later on - particular given the vague and surreal quality of the supposed experiences.

But the information really is limited, so everything is speculation.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the Bible is also the only source you have for the actions of those disciples (I'm including the apocrypha when I say "Bible"). And it's second-hand.

It's a plausible hypothesis, but it's not very testable and it doesn't indicate much.

Personally I'm in the "Jesus led a cult" camp. I find it much less surprising that his followers remained loyal after his death than that (for example) the followers of Jim Jones killed themselves at his command.

Psychology also established that certain factors (authority and conformity in particular) can cause people to doubt their own memories and factual evidence. I think there's significant evidence that false memories can arise in certain situations (but I'm not too familiar with it). So it's certainly possible that some of his disciples really believed that they saw him after he died. I think one of two things is more likely, though - either someone in Jesus' group had some power they didn't want to give up (and perhaps they even used the name of Jesus to increase their power over his followers) and so fabricated the resurrection story, or it's a matter of cumulative embellishment as in the game of "telephone."

The gospels were written decades after Jesus died. And even in the gospels themselves, the description of the resurrection is inconsistent - earlier gospels describe it as a straightforward event, but later gospels add angels and earthquakes and other fireworks. My guess is that the whole story of Jesus as we know it is the product of oral transmissions that became more and more exaggerated over time. The original story of the resurrection? People very often have experiences of being "contacted" by loved ones after their death, and Jesus almost certainly had some very devoted followers. I'm guessing that some of those followers had similar experiences of Jesus and believe he wss communicating with them after his death - perhaps even "telling them" that he was alive. These people could easily have ended up being eyewitnesses to a physical resurrection later on - particular given the vague and surreal quality of the supposed experiences.

But the information really is limited, so everything is speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is fairly plausible. I think what makes Jesus different then most "cult-like" situations is that typically in those situations you are dealing with a leader with an almost hypnotic hold over his followers-- which Jesus may have had-- but in this case the link was clearly severed in that Jesus was executed. This is usually where cult's disband etc. If Jesus' followers had all killed themselves shortly after his death, or simultaneously or some such, I would think that was a much more natural explanation.

I can't deny that substantial filtering has obviously gone on in the retelling of the story. But it does seem from very early on, the ressurection BECAME the message, and it certainly wasn't a message that people wanted at the time. They wanted a bonafide HERO messiah, not some afterlife abstraction.

Clearly there are many plausible theories, I just find the theory that the disciple believed they had witnessed a ressurection to be very difficult to discredit.

I appreciate the discourse and ideas about this, and the fact that many of the "skeptics?" are VERY well informed on the relevant history.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to cop out like this, but I am not a bible scholar and I am going by memory, but my recollection was that Jesus predominantly claims he is the "son of man". It is only at the very end that he starts to say differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus meant that he was born of biological parents (i.e. man) just like you & me but is God in human form. Towards the end of his life, before he was crucified, he told them that he was the Christ & would be seated at the right hand of God.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the bottom line is I can't really dismiss as implausible the hypothesis that the Disciples genuinely believed that Jesus was resurrected and spoke to them after his death.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happened to his body then? Not only did he speak to them but he appeared before them & walked among them. He even appeared before a crowd of over 500 people.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that. Here's Lapides himself on the subject.

http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/pub...essiah-631.php

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the only parts from that article that deals with my objection:
[ QUOTE ]

But that objection didn't fly any further than the previous one. "In God's wisdom, he created checks and balances both inside and outside the Christian community," Lapides explained. "When the Gospels were being circulated, there were people living who had been around when all these things happened. Someone would have said to Matthew, ?You know it didn't happen that way. We're trying to communicate a life of righteousness and truth, so don't taint it with a lie.'

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, he is appealing to God's wisdom which I find amusing. Secondly, this is assuming that those who were contemporaries of Jesus would know all the intricate details of his life and not of just certain isolated instances, which is much more likely. Would the people who were still alive from Jesus's time be witnesses to more than one or two events from his. It is also assuming that those who did have first hand knowledge of Jesus's life somehow were familiar with Mathew's work and were "proofreading" it.

[ QUOTE ]

"Besides," he added, "why would Matthew have fabricated fulfilled prophecies and then be willing to be put to death for following someone who he secretly knew was really not the Messiah? That wouldn't make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Perhaps because he believed that the prophecies were irrelevant but that it might prevent people from believing in Jesus? If he believed that Jesus actually was the Messiah and that the prophecies weren't binding, why would he not fabricate fulfilled prophecies?

[ QUOTE ]

"What's more, the Jewish community would have jumped on any
opportunity to discredit the Gospels by pointing out falsehoods. They would have said, ?I was there, and Jesus' bones were broken by the Romans during the crucifixion,'" Lapides said. "But even though the Jewish Talmud refers to Jesus in derogatory ways, it never once makes the claim that the fulfillment of prophecies was falsified. Not one time."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain the Jewish community did try to discredit the Gospels. And this also goes back to the assumption that there would be enough people around who not only were first hand witnesses of Jesus's life, but that they had full memories of these events, they were aware of Matthew's writings, they believed it was important to discredit the Gospel, etc. etc.

Sorry if I'm not convinced, but your rebuttal is not very compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read Lapides I don't think he is appealing to God's wisdom, but referring to it. He is saying the circumstances, the internal societal checks and balances indicates God's will. The interpersonal, political and societal systems in place at a certain time are what anthropologists, archaeologists and historians study to arrive at what actually happened in an ancient group. They do have relevant cultures, beliefs and customs/traditions. So we can study them to arrive at theories/conclusions about them.

The 12 Disciples (Apostles) lived and travelled around the clock with Jesus for a couple of years. In a court of law til this day you only need 1 or 2 eyewitnesses to testify or substantiate the validity of an event. 2 is better than 1 because its less likely there is a lie and because you can get different perspectives and they either back each other up or they refute one another. The Disciples don't refute one another. They were handpicked by Jesus to study under him and deliver the Gospel. Jesus was the Living Word. He writes his words on the hearts of men and then they live his teachings while the Disciples did the actual physical act of recording the Word.

These Disciples were actually very humble men so I doubt it would even occur to them to trace back prophecies and record them if they hadn't personally experienced it. They would know the Hebrew religion and as Christ performed certain things they would have noticed it and remarked on it amongst themselves and said "hey isn't that like it says in the scriptures" to each other.

Today if you saw a miracle it would probably impress you to so great a degree that you would never forget it unless you got Alzheimers or a brain injury of some sort. If you and I and madnak and tame-deuces and Mendacious and Phil153 are sitting around a stone table in the park eating hamburgers and Phil153 starts to levitate. I guarantee you we will all find it remarkable and we wouldn't forget it and we're more than likely going to go tell people who are now going to follow Phil around to see what else he does.

quote: I'm fairly certain the Jewish community did try to discredit the Gospels.

You'd have to find proof of this then, but I think initially the Christians were so small a group, the society pressure the Jews were putting on other Jews to stay Jewish, the Hebrews preoccupation with the Sadducees and Pharisees conflict and their preoccupation with Roman hegemony is probably what they gave most of their attention to. God planted a tiny mustard seed among them and it took off to the Gentiles letting the Jews exist til this day as a separate people and that's God's purpose also. The Jews were suppose to exist until they re-establish as a nation which they did in 1948 with the rise of Israel.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I was in College I took a course called “Historical Jesus” (girlfriend at the time was taking the course). I seldom went, but did attend the last day of class when the professor gave his take on what history tells us about the ultimate question of Jesus status as supernatural figure. I will do my best to paraphrase.

He said that Jesus lived in a time where cooky crackpot alternative apocalyptic nuts roamed the streets—mostly without any significant followers. When Jesus, who wasn’t too far from this mold, actually started to develop a following and began to call into question the Jewish Clergy, he was discredited to the public, and put to Death as a threat to the order. Here is where things become interesting. After Jesus died, Jesus's followers (none of whom was previously impressive in the slightest) by all rights should have disbanded, lucky to have their skins intact, as Jesus at this point was not a popular guy. Instead, they claim he was resurrected, and at great cost to themselves and without any financial backing or incentive became absolutely devoted zealots with his ressurection as the foundation of their belief. His conclusion was that the only explanation was the disciples truly believed in the resurrection.

Assuming this is a reasonable accounting of the “history” involved, why did Jesus’ disciples insist he had resurrected and risk their necks for seemingly no gain and a lot of hardship when they would have been so much better off slinking away?

This isn’t meant as a “proof” or to convince anyone of anything, it is just something that seems interesting about the origins of Christianity.

Anyone else find this sufficiently puzzling to comment?

[/ QUOTE ]


1. lol @ that class in college

2. Christianity is astrology worship and has evolved from wayyyy older mythologies.


http://rationalrevolution.net/blogdat/helios12.jpg

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
What happened to his body then? Not only did he speak to them but he appeared before them & walked among them. He even appeared before a crowd of over 500 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

link to the Utube clip please.

luckyme

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not only did he speak to them but he appeared before them & walked among them. He even appeared before a crowd of over 500 people.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not possible for a dead man to walk, talk, or appear alive to a crowd of 500 people. What possible reason would I have to believe this?

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not only did he speak to them but he appeared before them & walked among them. He even appeared before a crowd of over 500 people.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not possible for a dead man to walk, talk, or appear alive to a crowd of 500 people. What possible reason would I have to believe this?

[/ QUOTE ]

For a mortal man...you're right...not possible.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not only did he speak to them but he appeared before them & walked among them. He even appeared before a crowd of over 500 people.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not possible for a dead man to walk, talk, or appear alive to a crowd of 500 people. What possible reason would I have to believe this?

[/ QUOTE ]

For a mortal man...you're right...not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what possible reason would I have to believe that Jesus was not a "mortal man".

Oh wait, because he walked, taiked, and appeared alive after his death, right?

I see how this goes. A nice round circle. Nice chatting with ya.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

An interesting and easy to read link on archaeology discoveries made of the City of Jericho:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/jericho.html

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming this is a reasonable accounting of the “history” involved, why did Jesus’ disciples insist he had resurrected and risk their necks for seemingly no gain and a lot of hardship when they would have been so much better off slinking away?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" right now, and this one part seems as if could shed some light on your question:

[ QUOTE ]
He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count.

[/ QUOTE ] http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

basically, Christ's followers wouldn't care about what could happen to them because they believed the second coming was imminent.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

You have to understand something very important:

Nothing was recorded about Jesus or His apostles during His life or immediately after his death. The earliest written accounts didn't appear until 60 years after His death. And most current gospels weren't written until a couple of hundred years after His death.

So your professor bases his conclusion on inconclusive evidence. It can't be said for sure what anyone did immediately after the crucifixion or during Jesus' life.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

Monty Python's Life of Brian is just as plausible as any of the four gospels. And what about the many versions that didn't make the cut into the bible.

Re: Beginning of Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Assuming this is a reasonable accounting of the “history” involved, why did Jesus’ disciples insist he had resurrected and risk their necks for seemingly no gain and a lot of hardship when they would have been so much better off slinking away?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" right now, and this one part seems as if could shed some light on your question:

[ QUOTE ]
He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count.

[/ QUOTE ] http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

basically, Christ's followers wouldn't care about what could happen to them because they believed the second coming was imminent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christ himself never said it was imminent. He said this:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with the hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." (Matthew 24:36, 40 & 42)

It was only humans who reasoned it was imminent.