I’d be willing to bet $5.00 that the whole empty tomb thing got started because some drunk, bored teenagers decided to play a prank and steal Jesus’ body from the grave, and then start the rumor that it was the end of the world (that the general resurrection had begun), and that Jesus had been seen raised from the dead. You could imagine Jesus’ followers hearing this rumor and out of joy that Jesus had been raised, and terror that the end of the world had begun, hallucinating that the raised Jesus had appeared to them.
I'd be willing to bet $5.00 that the whole empty tomb thing got started because some drunk, bored teenagers decided to play a prank and steal Jesus' body from the grave, and then start the rumor that it was the end of the world (that the general resurrection had begun), and that Jesus had been seen raised from the dead. You could imagine Jesus' followers hearing this rumor and out of joy that Jesus had been raised, and terror that the end of the world had begun, hallucinating that the raised Jesus had appeared to them.Dr. James McGrath offers an interesting naturalistic analysis of how belief in the resurrection might have begun among Jesus’ first followers. The Pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed says: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve," (1 Cor. 15:3-5) If Mark read Paul, and John read at least one of the Synoptics, then the account of the crucifixion/burial/resurrection of Jesus may go back to only one source, the author of The Pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed, who cites only visions (hallucinations?) and scriptures as sources. But McGrath says that, rather than speculating on the genealogical pre-history of these traditions in an attempt to attribute them to a single point of origin, it might be more persuasive to note what Paul explicitly says: that the first person to have the kind of religious experience was Cephas, whose failure in relation to Jesus would naturally create precisely the kind of psychological state that leads to some sort of experience that would help him alleviate his guilt and find catharsis. Once one person has a powerful experience, they may in turn facilitate others doing likewise. One can offer a naturalistic account of how things unfolded without any need to deviate from the depiction in our earliest sources.
What kind of religious experience did Paul say Cephas had?
What kind of religious experience did Paul say Cephas had?That the raised Jesus appeared to him. On the other hand, the humorous scenario I proposed isn’t contradicted by what we know about the origins of Christianity, and may even be hinted at in the text: (1) My scenario was: The whole empty tomb event could have gotten started because some drunk, bored teenagers who were tired of listening to Christians prattling on about the end of the world decided to play a prank and stole Jesus’ body from the grave, and then started the rumor that Jesus had been seen raised from the dead, and it actually was the end of the world (that the general resurrection had begun). You could imagine Jesus’ followers hearing this rumor and out of joy that Jesus had been raised, and terror that the end of the world had begun, hallucinating that the raised Jesus had appeared to them. lol (2) And the idea of bored teenagers stealing Jesus’ corpse and starting rumors as a prank that (a) Jesus was raised and (b) that the general resurrection had begun, may even be suggested by the text. After all, the rumor was started by the teenager in Jesus’ empty tomb in Mark: “…But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, even though it was extremely large. When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here! See the place where they laid Him.… (Mark 16:5)." (3) The point is, this scenario is a “possible" scenario used to construct a naturalistic account of how faith in the resurrected Jesus began. There are many other models. But as Dr. Carrier says, we don’t want to overstep the bounds of reason by saying we have a “possible" explanatory framework, therefore we have a “probable" explanatory framework. These reconstructions of the possible reasons behind the arising of faith in the resurrection are “only possible," and therefore merely speculative.
Hadn’t thought of that before. Sounds like it would make a good scene in a comedy about Jesus and the early Christian church.
What kind of religious experience did Paul say Cephas had?A "vision" of the raised Jesus.
OK, I remember now that Paul made a deal about how he independently experienced the spirit of Jesus before he ever met the other apostles, and he indicated Peter had experienced him first. Paul was travelling around enforcing Roman law against Christians, so he surely would have known the experiences they were having. I would speculate he wanted to join this movement as a leader, so claiming a “religious experience" would have been a way to get credit. He repeats often how Jesus spoke directly to him and uses that as a claim to authority.
You scenario has some probability, even though you have nothing to back it up, but I think speaking in probabilities is the important point here. John Loftus has a similar alternate “missing body" story. But he admits he has no evidence. He presents the story to make the point that you could make assumptions about prior probabilities and determine some non-zero likelihood of his story. You could do the same for Christ rising bodily and come a lot closer to zero. That’s the only point of doing such an exercise. Maybe that’s what you meant, but you seem kinda attached to your story.
You also throw in this stuff about bored teenagers, as if 1st century Palestine was a middle class urban setting with coffee shops and video arcades. It wasn’t. Teenagers would be worrying about their next meal just like most everyone else. If the apostles existed as described in the NT at all, they still would have been a small group, not something that teenagers would be noticing and commenting on like Scientologists or similar cultic groups of today.
As with previous posts of yours, I wonder what Bible you read or what historians interest you. Apparently you’ve read a couple Carrier articles, but you need to disabuse yourself of your existing misconceptions. I think you’ll find real history is much more interesting than funny stories in your head.
The point is, if you MISPLACE YOUR KEYS, you don’t (unless you’re insane) draw the conclusion “There may be a naturalistic explanation, but I think the most probable explanation is that the invisible leprechauns took my keys.” Similarly, if you MISPLACE A CORPSE (in this case Jesus), the reasonable direction to go is not to conclude that a miracle happened, but rather that there was some naturalistic explanation (eg. someone stole the corpse as a prank, etc.)
Paul mentions nothing of the empty tomb, which you think he would have given his fascination with the crucifixion. In any case, maybe Jesus was buried in a unmarked tomb along with other prisoners that got the death penalty, and so no one knew where he was buried, or maybe someone stole the body as a prank. In any case, all we really have as evidence of the resurrection is the post mortem hallucinations of the disciples of Jesus recorded in the pre Pauline Corinthian creed. As I said Dr. McGrath pointed out elsewhere in this thread, we can have recourse to a perfectly natural explanation for the hallucinations/appearances. Dr. McGrath wrote:
“The first person to have the kind of religious experience was Cephas, whose failure in relation to Jesus would naturally create precisely the kind of psychological state that leads to some sort of experience that would help him alleviate his guilt and find catharsis. Once one person has a powerful experience, they may in turn facilitate others doing likewise. One can offer a naturalistic account of how things unfolded without any need to deviate from the depiction in our earliest sources.”
And so, since we have a situation that is easily understandable as natural, not miracle, we should choose to accept the naturalistic explanation. Choosing to believe in a miracle here would be analogous with blaming invisible leprechauns because you can’ find you car keys.
As I said above, it is silly to try to argue from a set of accepted historical facts to the inference that a miracle has happened, because, as Carrier points out, the standard of evidence to support the “miracle inference” would have to be ridiculously high. For instance, if I told you I have a job, you would not require a great deal of evidence because lots of people have jobs. On the other hand, if I told you I have an interstellar vehicle, you would need extensive and convincing evidence of my claim (you would probably have to see the vehicle and watch it work). On the other hand, wildly extraordinary claims like The New Testament claim that Jesus rose from the dead would require massive amounts of convincing evidence (which we don’t have).
A natural explanation is always more reasonable than a miraculous one.
Thanks for that idea about Leprechauns. I put a gold coin a box with a lid trap and I caught the bugger. I didn’t ask for a wish because I know those never work out. Got my keys back though.
The point is, if you MISPLACE YOUR KEYS, you don't (unless you're insane) draw the conclusion "There may be a naturalistic explanation, but I think the most probable explanation is that the invisible leprechauns took my keys." Similarly, if you MISPLACE A CORPSE (in this case Jesus), the reasonable direction to go is not to conclude that a miracle happened, but rather that there was some naturalistic explanation (eg. someone stole the corpse as a prank, etc.) Paul mentions nothing of the empty tomb, which you think he would have given his fascination with the crucifixion. In any case, maybe Jesus was buried in a unmarked tomb along with other prisoners that got the death penalty, and so no one knew where he was buried, or maybe someone stole the body as a prank. In any case, all we really have as evidence of the resurrection is the post mortem hallucinations of the disciples of Jesus recorded in the pre Pauline Corinthian creed. As I said Dr. McGrath pointed out elsewhere in this thread, we can have recourse to a perfectly natural explanation for the hallucinations/appearances. Dr. McGrath wrote: "The first person to have the kind of religious experience was Cephas, whose failure in relation to Jesus would naturally create precisely the kind of psychological state that leads to some sort of experience that would help him alleviate his guilt and find catharsis. Once one person has a powerful experience, they may in turn facilitate others doing likewise. One can offer a naturalistic account of how things unfolded without any need to deviate from the depiction in our earliest sources." And so, since we have a situation that is easily understandable as natural, not miracle, we should choose to accept the naturalistic explanation. Choosing to believe in a miracle here would be analogous with blaming invisible leprechauns because you can' find you car keys. As I said above, it is silly to try to argue from a set of accepted historical facts to the inference that a miracle has happened, because, as Carrier points out, the standard of evidence to support the "miracle inference" would have to be ridiculously high. For instance, if I told you I have a job, you would not require a great deal of evidence because lots of people have jobs. On the other hand, if I told you I have an interstellar vehicle, you would need extensive and convincing evidence of my claim (you would probably have to see the vehicle and watch it work). On the other hand, wildly extraordinary claims like The New Testament claim that Jesus rose from the dead would require massive amounts of convincing evidence (which we don't have). A natural explanation is always more reasonable than a miraculous one.But you can't build a theistic religion on rational explanations, so ya gotta have a miracle. More than one is better. Lois