Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2016, 02:49 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 03:19 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(19-11-2016 10:26 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm surprised to hear you say this because I generally trust your education, but that doesn't match what I've been taught. I've been told that the Jewish concept of resurrection was firmly established well before the time Jesus was said to have lived. My understanding is that the story of Jesus is rooted in Jewish teachings. I've been taught that the resurrection is biblical (Daniel comes to mind), it's Rabbinic, its Talmudic, and it's further detailed by the Rambam and Rashi (among others).

The link added was to post that was too cumbersome, but if you're in a position to summarize, that would be really appreciated.

"Mark 12:18
Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question."

You were not taught the nuances and the CHANGES. Nothing EVER just pops out into human culture "full blown". You also *dated* nothing, and referenced nothing.

The concept of personal (individual) immortality DEVELOPED in Hebrew culture after the Exile, and only some bought into it. It was part of a larger cultural shift.
Individual immortality would not have been important if the notion of "individualism" (which is taken for granted and ingrained in modern culture) did not exist and was not yet important.
The traditional family groups were disrupted during the Exilic Period, and before that, immortality was granted by family (male line) continuity. The "exaltation" of apocalyptic heroes (of which Jesus was one)
slowly devloped into the concept of personal immortality, and even St. Paul, in his writings, thought only the "saved" *put on immortality*.

Apart from that, as HOC said, you can all do your own research. I gave you two references, (apart from my own).
The Book of Daniel was not written during the period where the text is set. That's been proven, AND it fits perfectly with the concepts and ideas that developed during the Apocalyptic period.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...aniel.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 03:21 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(19-11-2016 03:19 PM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Secondly,assume that Jesus was a jewish apocalyptic preacher who lived in the 1st century.(I believe this is the majority consensus among NT scholars)

He was a first century preacher snuffed out in his prime, but scholars disagree exactly how to categorise him.

Quote:So, the question is why did the apostles think Jesus was resurrected at all?
How did the apostles reach to this conclusion?

The easiest answer to that is that they did reach that conclusion, and we know they did because of the very early creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. It's likely that their initial belief was purely in a spiritual resurrection, and the mythology grew.

Quote:Paul is said to have met with Peter and Jesus' brother James some 3 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death and stayed with them for atleast a couple of weeks. During this stay I'm pretty sure they talked about Jesus. Did it never come up that no such thing happened, if the resurrection was indeed a story, the apostles should have set things straight with Paul.

There's no question that Paul met Cephas and James. He says so, and Acts corroborates him.

Quote:In contrast, Paul is quite vociferous in expressing that salvation is only attainable through belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Which in turn means that the apostles didn't object to Paul's views or even that they are the ones to confirm such views.

They did object to his views, see Galatians 2 for example.

Quote:Another broader question this raises is that, knowing how the church turns out to be in the years that follow Jesus' death, why didn't the apostles object to any of it?

They did object, this event is known as the Jerusalem Council and takes place in Acts 15, and is directly referenced in Galatians 2. Beyond that note that Cephas and James were involved in the Jerusalem Church while Paul went on missionary journeys along the Mediterranean. They basically had an agreement that Paul and Barnabas could teach what they wanted outside of Jerusalem.

Quote:What could possibly have happened that all the apostles thought that Jesus was resurrected!?

The simple answer to that is that all he had to do was to die for them to believe that his spirit has been raised.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aractus's post
20-11-2016, 03:31 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 12:57 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Am I making any false assumptions here, or am I missing something?

You are missing something, actually quite a lot.
Multiple times in the NT post Easter stories, the apostles don't recognize the (Jewish) *shade* they say that appears to them. Sheol was where ALL the dead went, good and bad, and it was not where the "heavenly host" lived.

Matthew 28: 16-17
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted".

They STILL, at the very end, didn't know what they were "seeing". If he was really physically standing there, no one would have "doubted".


Psalm 39 :
Turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again,
before I depart, and am no more.

Psalm 115 :
The dead do not praise the Lord,
nor do any that go down into silence".

Psalm 6 :
For in death there is no remembrance of you, in Sheol, who can give you praise ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 03:46 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
On the question on whether the apostles lied - the answer is no they didn't. It's a mythology - something that very few people care to understand, but basically it's a metaphysical structure like language that can be said to exist, but not in a purely physical sense. Their beliefs formed the basis of this mythology, and it taught that Jesus was raised from the dead - no one "invented" that, if anything it came from what Jesus taught his initial followers about the afterlife.

Paul, for example, only knows about the spiritual resurrection. The mythology has not yet developed to the point where it is a bodily resurrection, which is what Christians today think of, and what is found in Matthew, Luke, and John. Paul believed that the disciples had visions of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:5) - this is not unheard of. We now know that something like 1 in 5 people will have a vivid vision of a deceased loved one. If he had 12 disciples as well as 4 blood brothers, then mathematically speaking three of them would be expected to have visions of Jesus from chance alone. This could have confirmed their beliefs. Their culture may have made them more susceptible than us in modern western culture to these visions as well.

The resurrection belief as a mythology makes perfect sense.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aractus's post
20-11-2016, 03:53 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 02:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 10:26 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm surprised to hear you say this because I generally trust your education, but that doesn't match what I've been taught. I've been told that the Jewish concept of resurrection was firmly established well before the time Jesus was said to have lived. My understanding is that the story of Jesus is rooted in Jewish teachings. I've been taught that the resurrection is biblical (Daniel comes to mind), it's Rabbinic, its Talmudic, and it's further detailed by the Rambam and Rashi (among others).

The link added was to post that was too cumbersome, but if you're in a position to summarize, that would be really appreciated.

"Mark 12:18
Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question."

You were not taught the nuances and the CHANGES. Nothing EVER just pops out into human culture "full blown". You also *dated* nothing, and referenced nothing.

The concept of personal (individual) immortality DEVELOPED in Hebrew culture after the Exile, and only some bought into it. It was part of a larger cultural shift.
Individual immortality would not have been important if the notion of "individualism" (which is taken for granted and ingrained in modern culture) did not exist and was not yet important.
The traditional family groups were disrupted during the Exilic Period, and before that, immortality was granted by family (male line) continuity. The "exaltation" of apocalyptic heroes (of which Jesus was one)
slowly devloped into the concept of personal immortality, and even St. Paul, in his writings, thought only the "saved" *put on immortality*.

Apart from that, as HOC said, you can all do your own research. I gave you two references, (apart from my own).
The Book of Daniel was not written during the period where the text is set. That's been proven, AND it fits perfectly with the concepts and ideas that developed during the Apocalyptic period.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...aniel.html

I'm not interested in doing research. I know well what my religion says. You were trying to correct me and I was trying to be receptive to the correction.

I didn't include dates because I assumed that we both agreed that the book of Daniel predated Jesus.

Who cases what the Tzidikem (Sadducees) thought? They were not representatives of traditional Judaism. They were an off-shoot movement local to this time period and they died out shortly thereafter. The Tzidikem rejected the resurrection theology because they rejected all of Oral Torah. The Perusim (Pharasees) were traditional Jews and they were the ones who held the resurrection tradition. It's their theology that grew out of original Judaism and it's their theology that formed the roots for modern Judaism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
20-11-2016, 03:54 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 04:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 03:46 AM)Aractus Wrote:  On the question on whether the apostles lied - the answer is no they didn't. It's a mythology - something that very few people care to understand, but basically it's a metaphysical structure like language that can be said to exist, but not in a purely physical sense. Their beliefs formed the basis of this mythology, and it taught that Jesus was raised from the dead - no one "invented" that, if anything it came from what Jesus taught his initial followers about the afterlife.

Paul, for example, only knows about the spiritual resurrection. The mythology has not yet developed to the point where it is a bodily resurrection, which is what Christians today think of, and what is found in Matthew, Luke, and John. Paul believed that the disciples had visions of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:5) - this is not unheard of. We now know that something like 1 in 5 people will have a vivid vision of a deceased loved one. If he had 12 disciples as well as 4 blood brothers, then mathematically speaking three of them would be expected to have visions of Jesus from chance alone. This could have confirmed their beliefs. Their culture may have made them more susceptible than us in modern western culture to these visions as well.

The resurrection belief as a mythology makes perfect sense.

Not exactly. Jewish Apocalyptic "exaltation" (which is the Greek language the writers of "Paul" use) was not the same thing as "bodily resurrection" (Ehrman, and Scott).
But the nuanced point you make about "mythology", (which carries a bad connotation in 2016) is valid ("Jesus Christ and Mythology" - Rudolph Bultmann http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entr...f_Bultmann )

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-11-2016, 05:49 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 03:53 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Who cases what the Tzidikem (Sadducees) thought? They were not representatives of traditional Judaism. They were an off-shoot movement local to this time period and they died out shortly thereafter. The Tzidikem rejected the resurrection theology because they rejected all of Oral Torah. The Perusim (Pharasees) were traditional Jews and they were the ones who held the resurrection tradition. It's their theology that grew out of original Judaism and it's their theology that formed the roots for modern Judaism.

Now that's an interesting thought: a civil "cold war" between the competing main branches of Judaism in the first century, under the influence of the recent occupation by the Roman Empire (and after chafing for 300 years under the influence of their "liberal" Greek Hellenic conquerors, prior to that), much in the way hardline evangelicals object to the liberal Christians who have no issues with evolution, etc.

For the tellers of the stories, then (prior to it being written down a couple of decades later), the Sadducees are being cast as the badguys because they had attained a measure of local power in their collusion with the Roman invaders, while the Pharisee traditionalists (who believed in resurrection, at least of the spirit) including Paul would see the Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) as both a harbinger of the fall of the damned Romans (soon, within this generation!!) and of the coming of a new spiritual kingdom that got rid of the corruption that the Sadducees represented. Believing that their leader was resurrected in spirit (with proof- we saw him!) before ascending to heaven would have been a strong message to potential rebels against Roman rule... and that of the Sadducee priests who abetted them.

Fear not persecution by the Romans and Sadducees, fear not death, for you shall rise to heaven as our leader's did. We all saw it! The day is coming soon! Save your souls now because you want to be Right with Yahweh when that happens.

We also need to remember that many Jews had been moved to Hellenic Anatolia (modern Turkey), also ruled by Rome, and that they were mixing Greek and Jewish ideas-- Paul himself is of that background, and would have wished to reach people like himself.

Eventually, the day did come, and people (some of them) rose up against Rome. It didn't end well. For survivors of that apocalypse, it would have been necessary to find a new interpretation of what the deceased spiritual leader they'd been following since their parents' generation "really" meant.

I will have to think on this a bit more. Still in very rough draft form. But it got me thinking. (It's also nearly 6 AM and I've been up all night... my gaming group meets on Saturdays... so forgive any major brain lapses.) I'll try to tie it together in future posts, especially if I have the input of others who know this material better than I do. I just retain obscure details and see patterns in them; it's the type of brain I have.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
20-11-2016, 07:05 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 03:53 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm not interested in doing research. I know well what my religion says.

That's the problem with believers. They're just as lazy and self-assured.
We're NOT talking about "modern Judaism".
We're talking about ancient Judaism and what THEY thought.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 07:08 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 03:46 AM)Aractus Wrote:  On the question on whether the apostles lied - the answer is no they didn't. It's a mythology - something that very few people care to understand, but basically it's a metaphysical structure like language that can be said to exist, but not in a purely physical sense. Their beliefs formed the basis of this mythology, and it taught that Jesus was raised from the dead - no one "invented" that, if anything it came from what Jesus taught his initial followers about the afterlife.

Paul, for example, only knows about the spiritual resurrection. The mythology has not yet developed to the point where it is a bodily resurrection, which is what Christians today think of, and what is found in Matthew, Luke, and John. Paul believed that the disciples had visions of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:5) - this is not unheard of. We now know that something like 1 in 5 people will have a vivid vision of a deceased loved one. If he had 12 disciples as well as 4 blood brothers, then mathematically speaking three of them would be expected to have visions of Jesus from chance alone. This could have confirmed their beliefs. Their culture may have made them more susceptible than us in modern western culture to these visions as well.

The resurrection belief as a mythology makes perfect sense.

Wouldn't it be presumptuous to assume anything came from the teachings of Jesus? I don't see how one could separate syncretic mythology of the time period, from what the disciples may have talked about, from what Jesus allegedly taught.

It would seem that there was an oral tradition for some time before anyone thought to even write down what they believed that Jesus said.

Also, wasn't the mindset of many writers of that period to make stuff up without regard to accuracy or pretense of being factual if you were trying to make some point about a religious matter?

So Paul; for example, claimed that he had a vision telling him eating things forbidden in Jewish tradition was now ok. He didn't give a damn about what the words of anyone said, (what writings could he base it from?) he would simply claim what he was saying was the real deal while claiming "god told me!"

I could see such an environment around 40 AD, a lot of people telling a lot of undocumented stories by oral transmission only, we don't even know what oral stories that the disciples were spouting. We only know what stories Paul was spouting.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
20-11-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 07:08 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 03:46 AM)Aractus Wrote:  On the question on whether the apostles lied - the answer is no they didn't. It's a mythology - something that very few people care to understand, but basically it's a metaphysical structure like language that can be said to exist, but not in a purely physical sense. Their beliefs formed the basis of this mythology, and it taught that Jesus was raised from the dead - no one "invented" that, if anything it came from what Jesus taught his initial followers about the afterlife.

Paul, for example, only knows about the spiritual resurrection. The mythology has not yet developed to the point where it is a bodily resurrection, which is what Christians today think of, and what is found in Matthew, Luke, and John. Paul believed that the disciples had visions of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:5) - this is not unheard of. We now know that something like 1 in 5 people will have a vivid vision of a deceased loved one. If he had 12 disciples as well as 4 blood brothers, then mathematically speaking three of them would be expected to have visions of Jesus from chance alone. This could have confirmed their beliefs. Their culture may have made them more susceptible than us in modern western culture to these visions as well.

The resurrection belief as a mythology makes perfect sense.

Wouldn't it be presumptuous to assume anything came from the teachings of Jesus? I don't see how one could separate syncretic mythology of the time period, from what the disciples may have talked about, from what Jesus allegedly taught.

It would seem that there was an oral tradition for some time before anyone thought to even write down what they believed that Jesus said.

Also, wasn't the mindset of many writers of that period to make stuff up without regard to accuracy or pretense of being factual if you were trying to make some point about a religious matter?

So Paul; for example, claimed that he had a vision telling him eating things forbidden in Jewish tradition was now ok. He didn't give a damn about what the words of anyone said, (what writings could he base it from?) he would simply claim what he was saying was the real deal while claiming "god told me!"

I could see such an environment around 40 AD, a lot of people telling a lot of undocumented stories by oral transmission only, we don't even know what oral stories that the disciples were spouting. We only know what stories Paul was spouting.

.... and the gospels didn't exist until much later, and some of the main themes in the gospels (the "Golden Rule") were themes in Rabbinic Judaism from the LATE 1st century, not early 1st Century, which is one of the reasons to doubt there ever even was a real Jesus.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: