About a month ago, I stumbled upon a few videos between Dan McClellan (of “Data Over Dogma”) and Michael Jones (of “Inspiring Philosophy”)—a veritable video spat that spanned (to my count) four videos. It was so incredibly frustrating to watch these videos, I felt I had to write a post on the topic, just so I would not have to say that the hour or so I spent watching them was a complete waste of time.
The alleged main topic of the video-spat had to do with Jesus’ prophecy in the Olivet Discourse (found in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21). McClellan posted a clip of Jones in an interview, where he was asked how one could respond to the charge that Jesus was a failed prophet, because what he prophesied in the Olivet Discourse (namely his second coming and the end of the age would happen within a generation) did not, in fact, happen. Jones’ response boiled down this: (A) most people assume Jesus was claiming his second coming would happen within a generation; but (B) his prophecy (like many prophecies in the Bible) was conditional—therefore, since the stipulations he laid out in that prophecy weren’t fulfilled, that is the reason for the delay of his second coming.
McClellan blasted this explanation and said: (A) the consensus view among critical scholars [i.e. Bart Ehrman and those in his camp] about the Olivet Discourse is that yes, Jesus was saying his second coming would happen within a generation, no, it did not happen, therefore, Jesus was a failed prophet; and (B) any other alternative interpretation of the Olivet Discourse was just “motivated by dogmatism” and trying to sidestep the plain meaning of the text in order to preserve certain dogmatic claims (like inspiration, inerrancy, etc.).
What proceeded in the videos, though, was no detailed, specific arguments by either Jones or McClellan concerning what was actually going on in the Olivet Discourse. Instead, they got into a verbal food fight over whether or not certain prophecies were “fatalistic” or “conditional.” They jumped around from certain prophecies in Jeremiah, to Jonah, to Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream) and resorted to the standard ploy that happens within so many mindless “academic” debates on social media—hurling accusations of ad hominem, poisoning the well, and other fallacies at each other.
The result was that there was more name-calling and accusations regarding certain fallacies and dogmatism than any substantive argument about the Olivet Discourse. After all those videos, the “arguments” basically boiled down to this: (A) the Olivet Discourse is a conditional prophecy and McClellan is poisoning the well and engaging in ad hominem; (B) the Olivet is not conditional; Jesus said his second coming would happen within a generation and it didn’t, so he’s a failed prophet…and Jones’ argument sucks and can’t stand up in a critical environment.
Or more simply: “You’re a poopy head!” “No, you’re a poopy head!”
Hey, anyone think it might be a good idea to actually make a coherent argument regarding the Olivet Discourse instead? Call me crazy, but claiming it is a conditional prophecy and just appealing to “consensus” and calling each other dunderheads doesn’t strike me as impressive.
Now, it’s true, McClellan is right to say that Jones’ claim that the Olivet Discourse is a conditional prophecy is really weak. It is weak. It is a really lame explanation. That being said, McClellan (in usual McClellan fashion) completely sidestepped any attempt to make a convincing argument for his claim either. As always, he just said, “Consensus says…” and then got off in the weeds, and (like many academics) spouted off impressive sounding words that amount to saying absolutely nothing of value. Bottom line: Jones is wrong to claim the Olivet Discourse is a conditional prophecy, but McClellan is wrong to claim that Jesus is a failed prophet because what he prophesied in the Olivet Discourse didn’t happen within a generation. Anyone with a basic literary competency should see this, and it is clear from these videos that neither Jones nor McClellan possesses it.
That being said, allow me to make an argument regarding what is going on in the Olivet Discourse. Here’s my main argument:
- Jesus was prophesying about the destruction of the Temple, and that did happen within a generation.
- Jesus was equating the “coming of the Son of Man” with the destruction of the Temple.
- Jesus clearly told his disciples that while that would happen within a generation, that the end wouldn’t happen yet.
- What we know about when Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written testifies to the fact that they clearly would have seen what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse as having been fulfilled and thus vindicating him as both prophet and Messiah. Simply put, they wouldn’t have included it if they thought that what he prophesied had not come true. (For that matter, if it had not come true, they wouldn’t have passed down what he said or written their works to begin with).
- The testimony of the early Church (as we see in Eusebius of Caesarea’s History of the Church) shows that they looked at the Olivet Discourse has having been fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish War of AD 66-70.
Let’s Look at the Olivet Discourse
Having stated that, let me first just lay out what Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 say in their respective passages of the Olivet Discourse. You task as the reader is to consider everything here and think about how the Olivet Discourse would have been understood in the mid-first century. In other words, if Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written somewhere between AD 60-80, what would people’s reaction be to what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse?
The Situation:
Jesus and the disciples are coming out of the Temple after confronting the Temple priesthood in the Temple and are now on the Mount of Olives. This is mere days before the Sanhedrin arrests Jesus at night and then takes him to Pilate the next morning. Jesus tells his disciples that the Temple is going to be destroyed.
The Disciples’ Question:
- Mark: “Tell us when these things are going to happen. When these things are about to happen, what sign will consummate everything?”
- Matthew: “Tell us when these things will happen. What will be the sign of your Coming [Parousia] and the consummation of the age?”
- Luke: “Teacher, when will these things happen? What will be the sign when these things are about to happen?”
Jesus’ Response (Part 1):
- Mark 13:5-12: Don’t freak out! There will be a lot of false messiahs! There will be wars and rumors of wars. “This has to happen, but the end won’t happen yet” (13:7). Nation vs. nation; kingdom vs. kingdom; earthquakes; famines—all these are “birth pangs.” You’re going to get the crap beaten out of you—but this has to happen so that the Gospel can be preached to all nations. Everyone will hate you because of me, but if you persevere to the end, you’ll be saved (13:12).
- Matthew 24:4-14: Pretty much says the same thing as Mark 13:5-12. In 24:14, though, Jesus says that after the Gospel is preached to all nations, then the consummation will come.
- Luke 21:8-18: Also has pretty much the same thing as Mark and Matthew, except that in Luke 21:18, Jesus says that those who persevere to the end will gain their souls.
Jesus’ Response (Part 2):
- Mark 13:13-20: Jesus tells the disciples that when they see the Abomination of Desolation “standing where it shouldn’t” (then Mark adds, “The reader should understand!”), they should get out of Jerusalem and “flee to the hills.” It will be the worst tribulation ever (then Mark adds another note saying that God “shortened those days” for the sake of His elect).
- Matthew 24:15-22: Pretty much the same thing as Mark 13:13-20. The only major difference is that when Jesus speaks about the Abomination of Desolation, Matthew includes “as spoken by the prophet Daniel,” and instead of saying, “standing where it should not,” Matthew has “standing in the holy place.”
- Luke 21:19-23: Luke really changes things up. Instead of talking about the Abomination of Desolation at all, Luke has Jesus say, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you’ll know her destruction is near” …so you’d better leave! Luke then has Jesus say that wrath is coming upon the land.
Jesus’ Response (Part 3)
- Mark 13:21-27: Don’t be led astray! I’m telling you this ahead of time. But when that tribulation comes, “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her light! The stars will fall out of Heaven, and the powers in Heaven will be shaken! Then they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory!” Then the Son of Man will send out his “angels” to gather His elect from throughout the world.
- Matthew 24:23-31: Mostly the same thing as Mark 13:21-27.
- Luke 21:24-28: Jesus tells his disciples many will fall by the sword, many will be taken captive to the nation, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations. In Luke he references the sun, moon, and stars being shaken, and says there will be a lot of fear regarding what is coming upon the world. And he also mentions the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and glory—and that is when Jesus says, “your deliverance is near.”
Jesus’ Response (Part 4)
- Mark 13:28-37: Jesus uses the example of a fig tree and tells his disciples that when they see these things starting to happen, that “it is near, at the gates.” At this time, Jesus says, “this generation can never pass away until all these things have happened” (Mark 13:30). He then says no one knows exactly when all this will happen, but they should stay alert, they do not know when “the Lord of the house is coming.”
- Matthew 24:32-51: Matthew largely has the same thing as Mark. There are two differences. First, in 24:38-39, he compares the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem (the coming of the Son of Man) to Noah’s flood that came suddenly. Second, in 24:40-41, he says that when it happens, “one will be taken, and one will be left,” whether they are in the field or grinding at the mill. And third, in 24:45-51, he includes an example of wicked servants who beat the other servants because they don’t think the Lord of the house will return soon. When he does, those wicked servants are going to be cast out into the region of the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
- Luke 21:29-36: Luke echoes Mark and Matthew. He mentions the fig tree example, says the Kingdom of God is near, and says “this generation” will not pass away will it all happens.
Until Next Time…
I like to keep my posts roughly to around 2,000 words. Therefore, it will take me a second post to fully tease out and make my argument regarding how we are to understand the Olivet Discourse. As I said earlier, Michael Jones is completely wrong to claim it is a “conditional prophecy.” McClellan is right in saying that by claiming it was a conditional prophecy, Jones is trying to sidestep what the prophecy is clearly saying—wait! No! …rather, what both he and McClellan THINK the prophecy is clearly saying. They are both wrong in thinking that Jesus is saying that his “second coming” (as understood in a “coming down from heaven at some point in the future” kind of way) would happen within a generation of his disciples. McClellan might try to claim that the “only reason” why anyone would go against the “consensus” of scholars like Bart Ehrman and McClellan is because he is trying to cling to some kind of uncritical dogma—but the fact is he (and many others) simply are literarily incompetent when it comes to passages like the Olivet Discourse. Simply put, if you claim that Jesus is predicting his “second coming down from the clouds and the end of the world” in the Olivet Discourse, you are the one injecting your own assumed dogma into the text.
And so, “Mr. Data over Dogma” is letting his biased dogma show. Check back in a day or so for Part 2.
I found this so frustrating too! I’m glad you thought IPs explanation was weak, I did too. I was left scratching my as to why he was going the route he did. I had to come to the conclusion that he must have a preconceived commitment to some other view that makes the obvious explanation untenable.
I honestly have never followed him. Does he even have any kind of degree in Biblical Studies? As for McClellan, I’m not impressed with him either…hence the post!
IP has a background in philosophy which is where he is strongest. He has a good habit of relying on scholars in a particular field rather than trying to come up with arguments himself. Dan McCellan was the student of Francesca Stavrakopoulou
I agree that the interaction was as uncomfortable to watch as a presidential debate. I didn’t see IP doing much wrong here though, DM was mind reading and IP called it poisoning the well which I think he is entitled to do. The content was shallow in the tiktok exchange but in more depth in other videos
not sure of the strength of their various cases. Conditional prophesy has never been my preferred read, but it isn’t without precedent. I read Jeremiah the other day and after a few chapters of prophesying destruction a king releases some slaves and God temporarily calls the whole judgement off. I think it was Tim O’Niell (?) who gave a much stronger defense of the failed prophet case than DM did where he cited Jesus saying “You will see the Son of Man returning on clouds of heaven”. I found that more compelling than for the failed prophet case than the ambiguous olivet discourse. Basing a theology, including a skeptical theology on the olivet discourse feels like basing a theology on the book of revelation
Apparently Dale Allison is prepping a book on this subject too where he defends the view that he wasn’t a failed prophet and anticipated a delay before his second coming, which seems pretty close to the orthodox views. I think this makes DM’s stance that anything other than a failed prophet interpretation is just dogmatism indefensible
Do you know what that book is called
You are wrong about the book and Dale Allision, go check it out. He’s not changed his position on the delayed parousia
The fact that you argue a preterist position is no different than McClellan arguing that Jesus was wrong about the prophecy; which is what the majority of critical scholars believe. What more is there for Dan to argue? He laid out what he believes. Dan let’s the text speak for itself and operate on its own terms. Yes, you and Inspiring philosophy cannot handle the plain reading of the text, so you are both side-stepping what the direct reading and creating all these scenarios to handle the dissonance you feel inside. What kind of individual makes all this stuff up? You writing that this was about the destruction of the Temple is not in the text at all. You are conjuring up these narratives because you can’t wrap your head around the fact that the Historical Jesus could have been wrong. I don’t consider guys like you serious scholars because the emphasis is not on the plain reading of the text, the emphasis is on making the bible fit your pre-conceived notions. It isn’t our job to make it fit and violate the scripture by adding and taking away from the text and conjuring up all these extra-biblical narratives.
In fact, I’m not advocating for a “preterist position,” although I admit my view is closer to preterist position than the Tim LaHaye/Hal Lindsey caricature position of the “End Times” that McClellan and friends are wrongly assuming and thus reading into the text.
NT Wright argues for the position I’m talking about, as well as many other scholars. You need to read those texts through the eyes of a first century Jewish Christian. Ask yourself, “Why would Mark be written right around the time of the Jewish War? Why would Matthew and Luke be written shortly after the Jewish War?” Answer? Because those early Christians clearly were convinced that what Jesus HAD prophesied had indeed come to pass.
This way of dealing with prophecy is seen throughout the OT. If a prophet’s prophesies did not have an immediate fulfillment within a generation, the Jews discarded them and concerned that prophet to be a false prophet. If they came to pass, then the Jews kept the prophecies, collected them, and put them in books (like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.). It’s why we have a book of Jeremiah and not a book of Hananiah.
What McClellan and Ehrman and friends are doing (whether they realize it or not) are reading Jesus’ Olivet Discourse through the interpretive lens of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. And that is why I consider them to be deeply flawed scholars. They still read the Bible like hardened literalists and Fundamentalists.
There is another scenario that no one has mentioned.
What if Joel is correctly interpreting the Olivet Discourse pericopes. What if…in the text…Jesus does prophecy the destruction of the Temple within the lifetime of the Twelve but never predicts the timing of the Second Coming. However…in reality…Jesus never said any of this!
These stories are theological, not historical. They were invented shortly after or shortly before the fall of Jerusalem (“the writing was on the wall” well before 70 CE).
What if these prophecies were invented by the Evangelists to give hope to first century Christians, many of whom had assumed that they would see Jesus crowned King in Jerusalem during their lifetimes (Paul seemed to believe that in his earlier writings), not watch the city burn and the Temple destroyed. The Olivet Discourse was invented (and then copied and revised by subsequent Gospel authors) to give hope. All was not lost. Jesus WILL return, we just don’t know when.
“first century Christians, many of whom had assumed that they would see Jesus crowned King in Jerusalem during their lifetimes ”
Where do you get that idea? No, that is not what Paul “seemed to believe.” Look at what he is saying in places like I/II Thessalonians…he’s talking about what Jesus prophesied about in the Olivet Discourse.
“The Olivet Discourse was invented…” geesh…
Sorry Gary, you simply are pulling things out of your butt.
You are correct that my assertion that the Olivet Discourse may have been a theological invention is not accepted as a legitimate possibility in conversative Christian Bible scholarship. But if one looks at a broader swath of New Testament scholarship one finds that my assertion is a widely held position:
Rudolf Bultmann viewed the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13/parallels) largely as a product of the early church’s apocalyptic theology rather than historical words of Jesus. He categorized its futuristic, cosmic predictions as “myth” that needs to be “demythologized” to find an existential message for the present, arguing it does not represent objective history.
Key insights from form critical and related higher-critical perspectives regarding the historicity of the discourse include: The “Little Apocalypse” Theory: Many form critics identified Mark 13 as a “Little Apocalypse” or “apocalyptic pamphlet” that may have circulated independently before being incorporated into the Gospel.
Some scholars argued that this pamphlet was produced by the early church around the time of the Jewish War (c. AD 66–70) and placed into the mouth of Jesus to provide comfort and guidance during the tribulation. Focus on AD 70: Critics argue that the detailed descriptions of the destruction of the Temple (Mark 13:2) indicate that much of the discourse was written or edited around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, reflecting the context of the early church rather than just predicting it. Adaptation of Sayings: Form criticism suggests that various sayings about the end times, originally spoken in different contexts, were gathered and edited into this structured discourse to address the delay of the Parousia (second coming).
Differentiation from Jesus’ Authentic Voice: While not dismissing all content, form critics tend to argue that the highly apocalyptic, cosmic language regarding the Son of Man (Mark 13:24-27) is more reflective of Jewish apocalyptic tradition and the early church’s post-Easter faith than the historical Jesus’ core message of the kingdom of God.
You are simply swimming out of your depth, Gary. And I thought a while back we agreed not to bug each other on our respective blogs anymore. It’s exhausting to talk with you, because you just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again for…what is it now? 8-9 years? Geesh.
But I didn’t pull this idea “out of my butt”, did I? It is a core position of most form critics and other liberal scholars.
I love debating this subject. The supernatural claims of Christianity are the largest collection of superstitions on the planet. I love debunking them. But I’ll stop, if that is what you want, Joel. What I find odd is that you reject with a dismissive wave of the hand all liberal scholarship. You are not interested in discussing liberal scholarly positions, only those of conservatives and moderates. Is it rational to reject one entire spectrum of Bible scholarship and call anyone who appeals to this position as “pulling it out of one’s butt?”
No, we have discussed them for years. I’ve gone out of my way to discuss them and critique them. The difference is that I’ve actually read and studied them and have come to my conclusions over the course of years of academic work. You, on the other hand, have done no such thing. And even after I discuss and critique and make coherent arguments, you just keep going with caricatured and shallow takes on virtually everything.
I think that’s your actual strategy: keep picking at someone who actually knows something with simplistic, childish repetitiveness. Then when that person final says, “Enough is enough,” you triumphantly declare you’ve shown up another “fundie” or whatever. You run to your blog, cut and paste a section of the banter, and make a post. Woo-hoo.
I have conceded that you may be correct: the Genesis Creation Story (Stories) may be allegorical. The author/authors never meant anyone to believe a literal six day creation occurred. These allegorical stories were told for theological and cultural purposes only, not for the purpose of teaching actual history.
This shows that I am reasonable, and not the fanatical fundamentalist you accuse me of being.
Can you concede that the Gospels are ancient Greco-Roman biographies which most probably contain significant allegorical/theological invention, told primarily for the purpose of glorifying the character of the central protagonist, not for the purpose of describing actual history?
If you can, then we are both reasonable men.
First off, you don’t even know what “allegorical” means. Second, no one is denying that there is creative artistry in the story telling of ancient historical biographies. Nobody thinks M, M, L, and J are the equivalent of historical documentaries. My specialty is analyzing the literary artistry and structure of these texts. But what you CONSISENTLY have failed to grasp for over seven years is that literary artistry and storytelling does not preclude the fact that they are still about history and historical people. You don’t have to believe that the story of Jesus healing a blind man happened exactly in that way. You don’t even have to believe that particular healing was “historical.” BUT…the preponderance of healing accounts attest to the fact that Jesus healed people. The stories told are meant to highlight the theological significance of his healings, and they are crafted within larger Gospels that with clear intention.
You don’t get that.
Wow. That’s fantastic. That is the first time I have seen you admit that some of the miracle stories in the Gospels may be fictional. Now we are getting somewhere. I have never claimed that Jesus did not have a reputation as a healer and miracle worker. Josephus, for one, says he did.
The bigger issue is this: If the miracle healing stories can be fictional, then the post-mortem appearance stories could be fictional.
Did some early Christians believe Jesus appeared to them…in some fashion? Yes. That is historical fact. But what did they see? A body? A “vision”? A bright light? We can’t be sure.
I have saying the exact same thing for 7 years.
Wonderful.
So we agree: It is possible that after his death and burial Jesus appeared to some early Christians in a visible, touchable body, but, it is also possible that these alleged appearances only involved visions (appearances in the mind) and/or illusions (groups of people seeing something in their environment, such as a bright light, and perceiving it as an appearance of Jesus).
No, we do not agree. You IMMEDIATELY have jumped to “visions” “illusions” blah blah blah. You NEED to be able to have an excuse to dismiss everything consequential in the Gospels, so you latch on to the clear, admitted fact that there is literary artistry/creativity in the telling of the biography of Jesus, and grasp at any straw to discredit the clear historical testimony that Jesus preached what he preached and did what he did. The Gospels are unambiguously clear–Jesus was crucified, died, and really rose from the dead, thus conquering death in real time history. That changes everything. And you know it does, so you are frantically coming up with anything you can to dismiss it.
I’m confused. So you are saying that even though some of the miracle stories may be non-historical you are 100% certain that all the post-mortem appearance stories are historical?
While the overwhelming majority of historians accept as historical fact that some early Christians claimed Jesus appeared to them…in some form or fashion…if you are saying that it is an accepted historical FACT that the twelve disciples of Jesus claimed to have seen and touched his resurrected *body* as described in the Gospels’ post-mortem Appearance Stories, I would like to see your source.
Gray, Dr. Anderson never said some of the miracle stories may be non-historical. What he said was that the gospel authors occasionally use “creative artistry” in reporting these miracle stories. Using literary artistry doesn’t make them suddenly non-historical.
If one journalist covering a traffic accident writes: “A Taurus and a Lexus were involved in a bad wreck this morning at an intersection,” and a second journalist covering the same accident writes: “A candy-apple red Ford Taurus traveling at what seemed to be warp-speed careened into a lime-green Lexus at 2 minutes past 9 am this morning at the intersection of Fourth and Main, causing the traffic pile-up of the century,” does the use of all those adjectives suddenly make the wreck a fantasy?
Of course not!
Ancient authors were free to embellish historical events but *not* to simply invent historical events which never happened.
The gospel authors knew as well as you do that normally, dead bodies remain dead, rotting away in their tombs.
And yet they insist that Jesus’ dead body did *not* stay dead, rotting away in the tomb, but instead was raised back to life again.
The resurrection was not on anyone’s radar–as the gospels take great pains to stress via reporting that the women were shocked and surprised to find him alive, and when they told the men, the men refused to believe them, essentially telling the women they were out of their minds. Because all Messianic Jews took for granted that a *dead* Messiah was *not, in fact* the Messiah.
They tell this story also knowing that Greeks and Romans found the idea of bodily resurrection absurd at best, downright offensive at worst.
And yet they stick to their story of a bodily resurrection.
Why? Why would they invent a miracle calculated to make everyone they hoped to sign-on with them think was absurd/distasteful/impossible to even consider?
Lee.
Dr. Anderson: You don’t have to believe that the story of Jesus healing a blind man happened exactly in that way. You don’t even have to believe that particular healing was “historical.”
Gospel of John: As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” 6 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7 “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
Per Dr. Anderson’s statement above, we do not have to believe that this particular (miracle) story occurred; we do not have to believe this event occurred.
Ok, this is the last time. If you continue to be willfully obtuse, I’ll just block you from being able to respond.
Think of a movie about a historical figure/event. That movie is about history—everyone accepts that. At the same time, within the framework of that movie, the writer/director will “invent” dialogue or condense a key speech into a two sentence statement. If it is about a soldier who killed a number of enemies, the writer/director may “invent” a specific killing that serves to represent the other killings as a whole.
That kind of thing happens all the time in every historical movie. And NOBODY then turns around and makes the sort of claims you are making, Gary.
For the sake of argument, maybe that specific healing you mentioned from John was “invented.” But the purpose of that story is to point to the very real historical point that Jesus really did heal people and that those healing led to direct conflict with many other religious Jews, and conflicts within the Jewish community.
Please, stop your obtuse nonsense.
As I have repeated over and over again, Joel, I accept as fact that Jesus had a reputation as a miracle worker and healer. But so did many other “prophets” in Antiquity. So what. Having a reputation as a healer and miracle worker is not evidence you actually performed laws-of-physics defying miracles. It doesn’t prove that you restored sight, healed someone of leprosy, or raised someone from the dead.
You have admitted that the *specific* story of Jesus healing a blind man may be non-historical. That is what you said. Everyone can read your statement above.
And if the story of Jesus healing the blind man *may” be non-historical then you must admit if you are honest and thinking rationally that other stories in the Gospels *may* be nonhistorical, such as the stories of post-mortem appearances of a touchable resurrected body.
I have never said that the early Christians invented the Resurrection. I have never said that the concept that Jesus appeared to some of them after his death and burial was invented. It is an historical fact, according to the consensus of scholars, that some early Christians sincerely believed that Jesus had appeared to them *in some fashion*.
What I and other skeptics call into question are the *specific* stories in the last three Gospels which describe Jesus appearing in a touchable body, eating food, etc.. We believe that it is very possible that these detailed appearances stories are non-historical; they were created for apologetic or theological purposes. But even if that is true, it does not change the historical fact that some early Christians sincerely believed Jesus had appeared to them.
Sorry Gary,
It is clear you are choosing to insist on being hopelessly obtuse on purpose.
Bye.
And Doug P is proving himself to be quite the psychopath. I blocked him from responding to my posts, but he keeps writing nasty petulant comments that wind up in the trash.
I understand why they don’t believe in the afterlife. They don’t have lives here.
Gary, since no ancient Messianic Jews expected a) messiah to die b) to be bodily resurrected in the middle of history ahead of everyone else, skeptics need to posit a plausible theory as to why the Messianic Jews following Jesus would invent, for apologetic or theological reasons, his bodily resurrection.
According to accepted Jewish wisdom at the time a crucified messiah was calculated to be a NON-STARTER. If your messiah got crucified, that was PROOF he wasn’t really the Messiah. Claiming Jesus had come back as some kind of disembodied spirit would’ve been more palatable and easier to sell to skeptics (though his crucifixion would still negate his being the messiah). You’re arguing that the early church PURPOSELY connected two dots which ancient Judaism insisted were UNCONNECTABLE.
And if they were making the story of a touchable body up for theological or apologetic purposes why do the synoptics and John all portray the disciples–women and men–as refusing to believe in his bodily resurrection until they meet him in person? Shouldn’t they portray Jesus’ disciples as believing on faith without needing proof?
Of course, the New Testament argues that Jesus’ bodily resurrection was proof that he really WAS the messiah after all. If the early church knew there’d been no bodily resurrection, why make such a ridiculous claim nobody would believe?
But again, if you say the gospels fabricated a touchable body for theological reasons, again, I have to ask, whose theology?
Jews? Not all Jews were looking for a messiah and those that were, again, were not expecting a crucifixion, let alone a bodily resurrection.
Non-Jews? Greeks and Romans considered the idea of bodily resurrection absurd at best, offensive at worst.
The idea of them all mass-hallucinating a bodily-resurrected Jesus is hard to swallow since, again, nobody was expecting that. I could see one or two of them hallucinating him as a ghost, but all of them, as a touchable body which still showed the crucifixion wounds? Not likely. And anyway, how many hallucinations are touchable?
Pax.
Lee.
Gary has been blocked, and even if he wasn’t, I doubt he comprehended anything you just said.
Wondered how long it’d take this time.
Also why I keep expecting him to be rational.
Oh well.
Pax.
Lee.