Welcome to Part 3 of my short critique of blogger Matthew Hartke’s post in which he puts forth the argument that the best way to explain the birth of Christianity is not the resurrection of Jesus, but rather that after his death, his disciples suffered from cognitive dissonance and who, much like the later Millerites, convinced themselves that they simply had interpreted everything wrong, that Jesus really was “raised and reigning” in some sort of “spiritual” sense, and that the ultimate fulfillment they were hoping for was still yet in the future.
In Part 1, I did my best to summarize Hartke’s 5,000-word post. In Part 2, I made a few distinctions between the Millerites and Jesus’ disciples, and I suggested that the driving force in misunderstanding the “apocalyptic” outlook in the New Testament was the assumption that our modern day understanding of “apocalyptic” (i.e. Tim LaHaye’s dispensationalist work, the Left Behind series) was not, in fact what the first century Christians had in mind. To play off the incomparable Inigo Montoya, “That word, ‘apocalyptic,’ I do not think it means what you think it means!” Here in Part 3, I’m going to briefly explain what I think is going on in the New Testament (and hence, the minds of first century Christians) when they spoke of things like the end of the age, the Day of Christ, and all those other things found in “apocalyptic” passages like Mark 13, Matthew, 24, and Luke 21, as well as allusions throughout Paul’s letters. Who knows? Maybe I’ll touch upon Revelation at the end.
What Was Jesus’ Disciples’ Initial “Apocalyptic” Outlook and Messianic Expectation?
So, let’s get right to it and first focus on two questions: (A) What were Jesus’ disciples expecting to happen before Jesus’ death? and (B) What did they come to proclaim after his death?
It is pretty well accepted by scholars that the “Jesus movement” that happened around AD 27-30 was (obviously) a messianic movement, and Jewish messianic movements in the first century were almost always associated with zealot movements, where charismatic leaders claimed to be the long-awaited Davidic king (Messiah; Anointed One) who would overthrow the evil, oppressing Roman rule of Judea and re-establish the Kingdom of Israel, and that would in some way usher in the Kingdom of God.
To be clear, the expectation was that the Messiah would establish very much a “this-worldly” Kingdom of Israel. Still, in the apocalyptic outlook of Second Temple Judaism, the current “old age”was so corrupt and evil that it couldn’t be salvaged. Therefore, there had to be a destruction of that “old age” and a re-creation of a “new age” in which the Kingdom of God would be established. So, if I could put it this way, the expectation was that the Davidic Messiah would bring a flame-thrower to the oppressing powers of the “old age” and would then re-establish the Kingdom of Israel, and that would then usher in and open the door to the “new age” and the Kingdom of God.
The exact details as to exactly how that would all happen were admittedly fuzzy—after all, apocalyptic literature tends to somewhat hard to fully grasp! Nevertheless, given that, most agree that the disciples were expecting Jesus the Messiah to (A) defeat the corrupt Roman Empire, (B) cleanse the corrupt Temple establishment, and then (C) establish the Kingdom of Israel. And then, in some way, the Kingdom of God would be established, there would be a “new age” in which the righteous Jews of the past would be resurrected.
What Changed in the Disciples’ Apocalyptic Outlook? What was First Century Christian View?
Obviously, that didn’t happen. Jesus ended up being arrested and essentially framed by that corrupt Temple establishment and then crucified on a Roman cross. In that sense, it seems the “Jesus movement” ended up being just like the many other messianic zealot movements of the first century: the leader is killed, the movement dies…guess that guy really wasn’t the Messiah! The surprising thing, of course, is that is not what happened to the Jesus movement. Within a few days, his disciples claimed he was physically resurrected from the dead, that they had spoken to him, and that something new had indeed happened. And then 50 days later at Pentecost, something else happened. According to Acts, God poured out the Holy Spirit on Jesus’ followers and it was on that day that it is acknowledged that “the Church” was born.
So, what happened? As Hartke correctly pointed out, what the later Millerites’ apocalyptic prediction didn’t happen, they simply “spiritualized” part of it, said that part had happened, and said the actual physical fulfillment was going to happen later. Where Hartke goes wrong is when he comes across the “already/not yet” language scholars like NT Wright use to describe the first century Christian “end times proclamation,” Hartke assumes this is like that. To put it another way, the first century Christian “already/not yet” is not the same “already/not yet” as the Millerite “already/not yet.”
The disciples didn’t “spiritualize” anything. They claimed an actual physical resurrection of Jesus happened. Not only that, but they also claimed that Jesus was, indeed, reigning, and that the end of the age was near. As the Gospels themselves claim, Jesus actually told his disciples that it would happen within their generation.
Of course, that begs the question, “What does that mean?” Most people, from everyday Christians and some biblical scholars alike, take this apocalyptic language of the “end of the age” to mean the end of the space-time universe in some way and (if I can put it this way) the beginning of a new space-time universe (i.e. the Kingdom of God) along our understood historical lines. Of course, that didn’t happen within the lifetime of the disciples, so some scholars (who have a completely wrong understanding of “apocalyptic”) argue that it was at that time, late in the first century, that Christians had their real moment of cognitive dissonance and basically re-worked their entire theology just to maintain their faith. Basically, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, and since those early Christians couldn’t deal with it, they “pulled a Millerite”!
All that is wrong. Instead, we need to see the New Testament language of the “end of the age,” or the “Day of the Lord,” or the “Day of Christ,” and passages like Mark 13 and Matthew 24 that talk about the “Coming of the Son of Man,” are not about the “second coming” of Christ in any “Left Behind/Dispensationalist” sense. They are about the destruction of the Temple that would eventually happen during the Jewish War of AD 66-70. I’m not going to go into a full exegetical analysis of these passages, but if you read them (especially Paul’s “end times” comments in I/II Thessalonians) in light of AD 70, they make a whole lot more sense.
Put all that together, this is what the proclamation of the early Christians was:
(A) Jesus was not only the Jewish Messiah, but was, in fact, the Son of God and Lord of creation—and this was displayed by his power over death, because he really resurrected from the dead. Hence, the power of “this age” (i.e. death) has no hold of him.
(B) Jesus prophesied that the “end of the age” would happen when God brings His wrath on Jerusalem and the Temple establishment for rejecting His Messiah. In a dramatic re-drawing of the lines of demarcation, the disciples proclaimed that the true people of God were the followers of Jesus, be they Jews or Gentiles, and thus the enemies of God were those who persecuted Jesus and his followers, be they Jews or Gentiles.
(C) And since all throughout the Old Testament the Day of YHWH was understood to be a time when God would save His people and bring wrath upon the enemies of His people, the early Christians claimed that this is what happened in AD 70, only now it was understood as the Day of the Lord/Day of Christ…because Jesus was more than just the Jewish Messiah. He was the Son of God and equal to the Father.
(D) Thus, the events of AD 70 were seen as a fulfillment of Jesus prophecy in Mark 13/Matthew 24/Luke 21 and they marked the “end of the age,” meaning the end of the Old Covenant God had with the Jewish people. The purpose of the Old Covenant was designate a people through whom God would bring about the Messiah. With the coming of Jesus and his vindication as both prophet and Messiah (with both his resurrection and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70), the Old Covenant had served its purpose. It was the “end of the age.”
Two additional things. First, we must remember that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written right around the time of the Jewish War of AD 66-70. That’s really important to realize. I believe that it was the outbreak of the Jewish War that served as the impetus for Mark to be written; and then, after the war was over, Matthew and Luke elaborated a bit on Mark. But the purpose for all of them was to drive home what I just said above. Just look at Mark 11-16. As soon as Jesus gets to Jerusalem, there are two things that are zeroed in on: Jesus is the Messiah, and the Temple would be destroyed, and when it is, that would mark the “coming of the Son of Man” and the “end of the Age.” The Synoptic Gospels were written as testimony to all that. They not only shared what Jesus taught, they not only emphasized his crucifixion and resurrection, but they also proclaimed that what Jesus prophesied about the Temple, the end of the age, and the coming of the Son of Man had happened.
The first century Christian proclamation and the Gospels are not examples of cognitive dissonance, where despondent followers reinterpret everything to keep their flimsy faith alive. No, they are pretty bold declarations that what Jesus proclaimed actually happened. If I can put it this way, the Gospels are saying, “This is what Jesus taught. And even though Jesus was crucified, he resurrected from the dead—his disciples bore witness to it. And if you have a hard time swallowing that since you didn’t witness it, then look at the real-life things that have come about that since, namely the outpouring the of Spirit and the destruction of the Temple—it happened, just like Jesus said it would.”
Now, Let Me Critique NT Wright a Little and Put Forth a Mulling in My Mind
All that said, there are still a few loose ends and some questions. If all that is true, then why is there still suffering now? When will Christ’s second coming come? Why hasn’t the full resurrection of the dead happened yet? How long do we have to wait for all this to happen? At what point do we say, “Okay, enough is enough—the statute of limitations of expectations has run out.”
I grew up in 80s Evangelicalism, where the dispensationalist “Left Behind” version of the “end times” was the thing. At some point in the future, Jesus would “come again.” And passages like Mark 13 and Matthew 24 were thought to be about that. Once I learned about the original context of passages like those and once I came to understand the first century Christian outlook I’ve briefly outlined above, I found I had a nagging question in my mind: “Well, what impact does that have on the belief of Jesus’ second coming in the future?” I mean, sure, the New Testament says Jesus is currently reigning and there would be a consummation at some point…but my goodness, there aren’t a whole lot of details about that!
It seems almost blasphemous to say, “I don’t believe in the second coming,” but I find myself thinking that. That being said, that has to be teased out a bit. I don’t believe in the “second coming” of that dispensationalist/Left Behind Series brand of “end times” mindset. No, I don’t think there is going to be a point in the future when Jesus is going to fly down out of the clouds like some kind of supernatural Superman. That’s wrong. That isn’t what the New Testament says.
Connected to that is the reason why, although I still think it is useful, I have a bit more hesitation with the kind of terminology that NT Wright (as well as many others) use regarding the “already/not yet.” Jesus was resurrected already; the resurrection of everyone else is not yet—it will happen at a later point in time. With the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, we already have a taste of the Kingdom of God; but the full consummation of the Kingdom is not yet—it will happen at a later point in time.
Okay, so here is the “mulling in my mind” I’ve have for probably the last 25 years that I haven’t been able to articulate (and that I’ll probably fail miserably at doing right now!). It is something that T.S. Eliot tries to touch upon in his poetry, namely The Four Quartets, and it is something C.S. Lewis tries to touch upon at the end of his novel The Great Divorce. It has to do with the relationship between how we experience time and the eternal reality of Christ reigning and the Kingdom of God.
We experience time much like a timeline, from point A to point B and so on.
Thus, we naturally try to understand everything in a linear fashion, for that is how we experience time. So, that is how the “already/not yet” terminology is expressed among scholars like NT Wright. Our language expresses things in terms of our understanding of time. We say the Kingdom of God is “not yet,” in that it will be consummated in the future. But what does the concept of “the future” mean against the backdrop of eternity? For that matter, what does “the past” mean against the backdrop of eternity? From our perspective that is conditioned by a linear understanding of time, the consummation of the Kingdom of God is “not yet,” but from the perspective of eternity, Christ reigns and the Kingdom of God is “already.”
And that is why I have mused for the past 25 years or so that perhaps what the disciples, first century Christians, and Christians ever since faced is the challenge of explaining the reality of Christ’s reign and the Kingdom of God in language bound to the linear perspective of history and time. In Christ, eternity intersected with history and time. In Christ, the eternal Word was incarnated and was a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. The events in Jesus’ life, therefore, were a part of that linear historical timeline that we can look back on and study to this day. And, like everything else in history, everything dies. Yet the disciples claimed Jesus resurrected, and that historical reality was evidence that there was (if I can put it this way) a deeper reality that is above and beyond our linear history. And yet they still had to use our limited language to try to explain what that deeper reality is.
Imagine we were all two-dimensional creatures living in a flat, two-dimensional world. If someone tried to explain what three dimensions looked like, how would that person do it? Possibly draw something like this:
Of course, that drawing isn’t really a cube—it’s still a flat drawing. And the only reason we can recognize that flat drawing as a cube is because we actually live in a three-dimensional world and already have a concept of three dimensions, so we can grasp it, even in a two-dimensional drawing. If we were merely two-dimensional creatures, though, this drawing would still be very hard to understand. That, I’ve come to suspect, is the challenge of explaining the reality of the Kingdom of God and Christ’s reign to people who are living in this linear, timeline-constrained history. Therefore, using terminology like “already/not yet,” although helpful, still doesn’t—it can’t—describe the full reality of the New Testament is bearing witness to.
T.S. Eliot, in his poetry, speaks of Christ as the “still point” around which all of history revolves. And that poetic image got me to thinking of possibly a different way to understand the relationship between eternity and history. Now, this is much more of a poetic/metaphorical explanation—but I think that might be the best way to understand all this anyway.
Imagine if actual reality is like this tree in its full three-dimensional form, but our linear understanding of history is like a flat line drawn from the far left edge of the tree (let’s say “Point A”) to the far right edge of the tree (“Point B”). Thus, the “consummation” isn’t so much reaching “Point B” in the future, but rather it is the full fruition of the tree, from its roots to up and outward. Thus, Christ’s death and resurrection is, so to speak, the “trunk of the tree,” out of which the entire tree grows and blossoms. Hence, he is the author of life and both the origin and ruler of all creation.
Does that make sense at all? It’s not perfect, for sure, but it has been in my mind for a good 25 years, and I think there might be something to it. Granted, there is the question regarding what the resurrection of the dead would look like for the rest of us. I believe we will be physically resurrected, like Christ, but it’s not going to be part of this current, “old creation” part of reality, right? Perhaps our sense of physicality in this “old creation” is a mere shadow to the fullness of physicality in the Kingdom of God—and that is why the resurrected Jesus was so hard for the disciples to comprehend. After all, the testimony is clear: Jesus was physically resurrected, but geez, there was something really different about him!
In any case, here the conclusion to this long, rambling post. First, all the talk in the New Testament about the “end of the age,” the “coming of the Son of Man,” etc., all makes the most sense when understood in light of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Second, when it comes to the “future” resurrection of the dead and the “consummation” of the Kingdom of God, maybe, just maybe, it is the language of linear-history trying to explain a deeper, fuller reality that is “yet to come” to we who are still part of that linear- history, but “already is”—we just need to experience historical death and then resurrect to new life to truly grasp it.
So, Partial or perhaps Full Preterism?
1) I think that has (so I’ve heard) a large following in the EO Church.
2) Any recommended books on this? Because it’s the option I hear discussed the least.
Well, definitely not full preterism. I really don’t think I would call myself “preterist” anyway…although I can see how some of what I wrote fits in a bit with that view.
Here is my understanding for a Messianic perspective. There have been many messiahs in Judaism, anyone that is anointed is a messiah. However, there were 2 messiahs found in Tanakh that were recognized as being very special, messiah ben Joseph, the suffering servant messiah and messiah ben David, the conquering king messiah. It was unclear whether these were 1 or 2 different messiahs, as the first was prophesied to die. When John the Immerser is in jail and asks Yeshua about whether he is messiah, they are speaking in a simple Bible code that refers to these different messiahs. Of course, all Jews wanted messiah ben David to show up and free them from the Romans, etc. Acts 1:6 is the disciples asking whether the “David” part is going to start now, even if they were wrong about it possibly starting before then.
It is an aspect of the good news/gospel when any of God’s promises is made evident in Creation and the fullest revelation of the gospel is when all of them all. Yeshua revealed the “Joseph” parts of the fullest gospel and will reveal the “David” parts when he returns.
I think your :”critique” of Wright and others is legitimate. I can see how the phrase “now/not yet” is inadequate and somewhat misleading. .It’s like trying to explain color to a person born blind.
As for the gospels, my thinking is that they may all have been written prior to AD 70 seeing as how none of them makes a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. It seems like the gospels would’ve pointed back to that as fulfilled prophecy had they been written afterwards.
I’d go so far as to argue the whole NT may predate the destruction of Jerusalem. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t have at least made an off-the-cuff reference to such a cosmically significant event if it had already taken place.
The whole “cognitive dissonance” thing strikes me as another instance of critics reading the gospels through a modern lens rather than through a first-century, Second Temple Jewish lens. Spiritualizing things wasn’t an option . . . unless maybe you’re Philo of Alexandria trying to reconcile Judaism with Platonism.
Pax.
Lee.
I think you make a defendable case against the Cognitive Dissonance arguments regarding the supposed Resurrection of Jesus here, but I also think it has some critical flaws.
while the source material does support the conclusion that Jesus had at least some expectation of his (possible) death, the same material consistently depicts his followers not understanding what he says about this, rejecting it and, after his death, completely failing to remember his (actually quite detailed and explicit) descriptions of the very events they had just witnessed. Again, the explicit predictions are almost certainly *post facto* embellishments, but nothing in the reactions to his predictions or the reactions to his arrest and execution indicate any of this was within *their* expectations, even if there is some evidence they were among those of *Jesus*. If we had episodes on arrival in Jerusalem where the disciples mourn his impending death or a note that the arrest was expected if still shocking, we’d have evidence that all this was expected by *them*. But we don’t. Further, we don’t even have any impression that they noted his predictions of his death after his crucifixion and so began to await his resurrection. If these things were among *their* expectations, it’s odd that the traditions are consistent in depicting them being totally shocked and confused even after his crucifixion and not in any expectation at all of him rising from the dead before he began appearing to them.
On the contrary, evidence we do get indicates a very different set of expectations among his followers. Mark 10:35-45 has James and John requesting “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” This is directly after one of the explicit depictions of Jesus predicting his death (Mark 10: 32-34) and appears to be placed to actually contrast their expectations with what Jesus is depicted as telling them. In gMark and gMatt it is also placed on their approach to Jerusalem, with the implication that their sitting with him in the kingdom will be happening very soon. gLuke places it while they are in Jerusalem after the Passover meal and just after yet another prediction of his betrayal and death.
So while we have fairly good reason to think the sayings and parables about his death have some historical basis, nothing in that or the other evidence indicates that his *followers* had this expectation. All of the evidence indicates they expected a glorious outcome, were totally shocked at what actually eventuated and then embellished and centred the potential for arrest and death only later.
If the interpretation of visions of Jesus after his death were then interpreted in ways to deal with this shock, the evidence we see all makes sense.
How would you respond to this statement, Joel: Never believe an extra-ordinary claim (such as a dead person sighting) when the eyewitness status of the person making the claim is in dispute.
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2023/01/30/never-believe-an-extra-ordinary-claim-when-the-eyewitness-status-of-the-person-making-the-claim-is-in-dispute/
Thanks,
Gary
” Jesus ended up being arrested and essentially framed by that corrupt Temple establishment and then crucified on a Roman cross. In that sense, it seems the “Jesus movement” ended up being just like the many other messianic zealot movements of the first century: the leader is killed, the movement dies…guess that guy really wasn’t the Messiah! The surprising thing, of course, is that is not what happened to the Jesus movement. Within a few days, his disciples claimed he was physically resurrected from the dead, that they had spoken to him, and that something new had indeed happened. And then 50 days later at Pentecost, something else happened. According to Acts, God poured out the Holy Spirit on Jesus’ followers and it was on that day that it is acknowledged that “the Church” was born.”
You are making an assumption here, Joel. The only sources we have for the timeline of THREE days between Jesus’ death and the finding of the empty tomb are the Gospels, anonymous texts written decades after the alleged events in question. I’m sure that as a conservative Christian you believe that the Gospels are historically accurate on this timeline, but since the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is disputed among the experts, I suggest that modern, educated non-Christians withhold judgment as to the historical accuracy of these texts. It is therefore entirely possible that Jesus’ tomb was not found empty until weeks or even months after his death.
And as to the issue of why the Jesus movement was different from all other previous messiah pretender movements; movements which abruptly ended with the death of their leader: Jesus was the only messiah pretender whose grave was found empty! The empty tomb kept hope live! But as we all know, there are many natural explanations for an empty tomb.
“The first century Christian proclamation and the Gospels are not examples of cognitive dissonance, where despondent followers reinterpret everything to keep their flimsy faith alive. No, they are pretty bold declarations that what Jesus proclaimed actually happened. If I can put it this way, the Gospels are saying, “This is what Jesus taught. And even though Jesus was crucified, he resurrected from the dead—his disciples bore witness to it. And if you have a hard time swallowing that since you didn’t witness it, then look at the real-life things that have come about that since, namely the outpouring the of Spirit and the destruction of the Temple—it happened, just like Jesus said it would.”
Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime between 65 – 75 CE. Therefore, it is possible that the prediction of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE was written BEFORE this event occurred. Skeptics must be honest and admit this is a possibility. However, if the Gospel of Mark was written prior to 70 CE, during the Roman-Jewish wars, the destruction of the Temple was a real possibility. Such an outcome to these wars would not be shocking to most non-Jews. The Temple was the seat of Jewish power. The Jews had dared to rebel against Rome and Rome was intent on teaching them a harsh lesson. To any non-Jew, the destruction of the Temple would have seemed inevitable. So was this a prophecy or was this a good guess? Most non-Christians are going to side with a “good guess”.
I believe cognitive dissonance can still very well explain the development of the Resurrection Belief, notwithstanding your objections, Joel. I would bet good money that this or something like this scenario is what happened:
-The disciples were preparing to reign on thrones with Jesus the Jewish Messiah in a re-established Kingdom of Israel. They expected to defeat Rome, govern Israel, and the entire world would be at peace, according to the Jewish Scriptures. These men were fishermen, peasants, and tax collectors, yet their dreams were filled with visions of ruling a nation!
-Then, their hopes and dreams were suddenly and violently crushed with the unexpected execution of their “messiah”.
-“What happened??” they asked themselves? Where in the Jewish Scriptures does it talk about an executed messiah? We were so sure that Jesus was the real messiah, and not a pretender.” Horrific despair and depression set in.
-then days, weeks, or months later, someone, probably women, find the tomb of Jesus empty.
“Why is Jesus’ grave empty?? Maybe God raised Jesus from the dead, just like he raised people from the dead in the OT! Maybe the empty tomb means that Jesus is still alive and will soon return to us to establish the New Kingdom!
-The empty tomb has given the disciples a glimmer of hope. Their hopes and dreams are still alive! This glimmer of hope triggers vivid dreams, daytime trances, and maybe even hallucinations of Jesus, possibly first occurring with Peter. In a very vivid dream, Jesus tells Peter that he has returned from the dead, he forgives Peter’s betrayal, and appoints Peter as the new leader of their movement. He instructs Peter to preach the Gospel with boldness because he, Jesus, will return to establish the Kingdom at any moment.
-Peter’s vivid dream triggers other disciples to have vivid dreams, trances, maybe hallucinations. Then groups of disciples experience illusions (bright lights) or false sightings (seeing someone in the distance, on a hill top for instance, and believing it to be an appearance of Jesus).
-“But why does Jesus keep appearing for brief encounters but never stays??” a disciple asks. “Well, maybe he wasn’t just raised from the dead, maybe the resurrection of the dead has begun! Jesus is in Paradise collecting the righteous dead and will soon return with them to establish his kingdom. Maybe Jesus was the first fruits of the general resurrection, the rest of the righteous dead will be raised…tomorrow!!! The Kingdom is nigh! Sell everything you have, move to Jerusalem, the city of David, fast and pray. Jesus’ coming will happen any second now! We are soon to be rulers of a nation!!!
And that is how cognitive dissonance led to the Resurrection Belief without anyone ever actually seeing a flesh and bone resurrected corpse!
That is a very imaginative scenario…with absolutely zero written or textual evidence anywhere.
Actually it is almost identical to NT scholar Gerd Luedeman’s best guess as to the origin of the Resurrection Belief, so I can’t claim the idea as originally mine. I read it in Luedemann’s book, “The Resurrection of Jesus”.
Christians often ask skeptics to provide a natural alternative explanation for the Resurrection Belief, but when we present possible explanations they scoff at them if we can’t provide evidence which proves our hypothetical explanation to be the actual explanation! It is like asking for possible explanations for Amelia Earhart’s disappearance, and then scoffing at the explanation that she probably crashed her plane because the person suggesting that possible explanation can’t provide evidence of the actual crash! That is silly. We skeptics aren’t pretending to know what caused the origin of the Resurrection Belief we are simply hypothesizing possible explanations. The only criteria that a possible explanation for an unexplained event requires is that it does not contradict any available evidence. My above scenario meets that criteria.
Please tell me why my scenario could NOT be possible, and I will withdraw it. I know you don’t believe it to be plausible, but that is a matter of opinion. Tell me why it is not POSSIBLE. I will bet most non-Christians will say that my scenario is not only possible but much more probable than the Christian explanation.
I didn’t ask you for an explanation. Yours was unsolicited. You agree there was an empty tomb , but then just decide it must have been found weeks or months later. Then you combine that with a completely baseless speculation about Peter having a dream, etc. Ok…not convincing.
Besides, then there is the reality of Pentecost 50 days later, so the empty tomb couldn’t have been found “months” later.
No matter. It boils down to this: you don’t believe the Biblical account is reliable. Ok…move on with your life. I don’t believe Muhammad rode a winged horse to Jerusalem. I don’t dwell on it and I certainly don’t maintain a blog dedicated to refuting that. I just don’t believe it, and I get on with my life.
Joel: No, I don’t think there is going to be a point in the future when Jesus is going to fly down out of the clouds like some kind of supernatural Superman. That’s wrong. That isn’t what the New Testament says.
Really? How about 1 Thessalonians 4:17 –
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
Or Matthew 24:30 –
Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Or Revelation 1:7 –
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
You may not ‘think’ Jesus will fly down from the clouds like a ‘supernatural Superman’ but the NT certainly teaches it.
“the reality of Pentecost 50 days later”
That is an assumption. This event is only recorded in one ancient text whose author and eyewitness status is disputed.
Question: Did you comment on Matthew Hartke’s post? Why is it ok for you to comment on skeptics’ blogs but you are unhappy when we comment on yours?
If you don’t want me commenting on your blog, just say so. Why do I comment on Christian’s blogs? Answer: I am involved in one of the greatest movements in human history: the debunking of religious superstitions. I believe I am doing a great service to my fellow human beings.
Again, if you do not want my comments on your blog, just say so.
No, it is a provable, historical fact that Pentecost comes 50 days after Passover. Lol…
But again, you don’t believe what is recorded in the Gospels or Acts–fine. Move on.
You’re free to comment, but most of your comments boil down to the SAME THING you always say and have said over the past few years. There is nothing new.
Must I have evidence of a plane crash to suggest a plane crash as a plausible explanation for Amelia Earhart’s disappearance?
It is perplexing to us skeptics why Christians insist that we provide evidence for our hypothetical, possible, natural explanations for the origin of the Resurrection Belief. If you were to ask me for a possible/plausible explanation for the disappearance of Amelia Earhart, I would respond: “Her plane probably crashed into the Pacific and she died.”
Must I provide evidence of her plane crash to posit such a hypothetical explanation?? No. No evidence is required. The only criteria that must be met is that my hypothetical explanation does not contradict any existing, established evidence.
Ditto for the Resurrection Belief. We skeptics do not need to provide one shred of evidence that the disciples experienced illusions, vivid dreams, cases of mistaken identity, and/or hallucinations as plausible explanations for the origin of the Resurrection Belief. Not one shred.
Well, good for you. If you don’t feel you need to provide evidence, then why are you so adamant on bringing the issue up?
You can’t rationally argue about whether or not the disciples suffered from cognitive dissonance if you can’t provide convincing evidence that the only stories we have about the disciples are historically reliable accounts.
So do I want to debate you on the eyewitness status of the Gospels? No. There is no need to. Conservative Christians repeatedly claim that they have eyewitness testimony for the resurrection of Jesus and that eyewitness testimony is very strong evidence in any court of law. But there is a big problem with this claim. The only alleged eyewitness statements Christians have of people explicitly claiming to see, touch, and hear a walking, talking resurrected first century corpse are in the four Gospels (and Acts). And the undeniable fact is that the experts (New Testament scholars) are divided on the eyewitness status of these ancient texts. The eyewitness status of the Gospels is disputed! Disputed eyewitness testimony is NOT considered strong evidence in a court of law.
This is why I believe that skeptics should stop debating Christians on the evidence and simply point to the fact that experts are divided on the eyewitness status of Christianity’s principal evidence for this alleged event. That is all we need to say! When experts are divided on an issue, most modern educated people withhold judgment on the issue in question. This argument will not convince many Christians, but it is sufficient for most educated non-Christians.
Modern, educated people should not believe in the resurrection of Jesus because the experts are divided on the eyewitness status of the only sources which describe in detail this (alleged) very extra-ordinary event.