The Death and Resurrection of Christ?

[DeistPaladin]

Hi, this is my first post on this forum.

I come from a conservative Christian background, but I now doubt the existence of God. I probably doubt more now than believe. By question (which is probably very common) is thus: How did Christianity begin if Jesus Christ died and stayed dead?

Did the disciples start Christianity, and if so why did they say Christ had risen and that they had seen Him if it is false?

Welcome! I've only read through the first three pages of this thread so apologies in advance if I repeat something already said.

Let me start by saying that I fully believe that nobody "just made up Jesus one day". There is no need to speculate such things when a more believable scenario involves the power of folklore and urban legend.

As FaithNoMore has posted, urban legends and folklore abound today in spite of the availability of fact checking resources. Not long after Elvis died, there were numerous "sightings" and stories he was still alive. Washington was barely in the grave before the nonsense about the cherry tree was being circulated.

Additionally, these stories aren't necessarily made up but evolve over time as it passes from one teller to another. Details are added and the story is fleshed out further. The line between fiction and "true story" is much thinner than we imagine. Further, as a story intended as fiction morphs into a "true story", it may get better with the telling.

Let's look at the books of the NT in the order they were written. First came Revelation, where the Jewish audience was expecting Yahweh to punish their enemies. Jesus in that story was a glorious warlord who bears little resemblance to the peace and love flower child of the Gospels. He conformed more to the Jewish concept of the messiah. The Jews, chaffing under Roman and other outside rule, were wondering where the promised kingdom of David went. Some decided their kingdom was in a higher realm.

Next came the epistles, mostly attributed to Paul. We have little detail of the life of Jesus but Paul flatly denies it was within his lifetime (1Cor 15:8). Paul saw Jesus in a vision and gives us little other details aside from his death and Resurrection. He tells us that Jesus was "born of a woman, of the seed of David" (no virgin birth) and relates the "take and eat" quote from the Eucharist (a common religious practice among the pagans, adopted by Christianity). He blames the Jews for crucifying Jesus but gives little details as to when it happened.

Next was the Gospel of Mark. There are no details of Jesus' childhood or birth. The story begins with his baptism when he was about 30. The resurrection story in chapter 16 was fully fleshed out and added later.

Matthew reads like a Gospel that elaborates and expands on Mark. Details about the virgin birth and Nativity are added. Matt seems to be writing for a Jewish audience and he lies his ass off about "fulfilled prophecies" which often don't check out when compared to what the OT actually says. That's another issue.

Luke also elaborates on Mark but differently from Matthew. He knows nothing about the flight to Egypt or Herod's massacre of the infants, instead relating the story of the shepherds in the field. They were later incorporated with Matthew's "wise men" to form the modern Nativity Story. Luke also mentions a bit about Jesus' childhood, about being a theological prodigy.

None of these "synoptic" Gospels (Matt, Mark and Luke) offer anything to validate the concept of the Trinity. Their Jesus is separate from and clearly subservient to his father-god, Yahweh. The two speak to each other in second person and of each other in the third. Jesus prays "not my will but thy will be done", indicating a separate will from his father. Jesus claims to have no knowledge of when the second coming will be.

The Trinity comes into play in the Gospel of John, where John the Baptist becomes so submissive (increasingly from Mark to Matthew to John) he doesn't even baptize Jesus at all. Jesus is not just the son of God but actually claims to be God-incarnate ("I and my father are one").

So the story clearly evolved over time. Other Christian groups existed with their own version as well. 2nd to 3rd century Marcionite Christianity claimed Jesus was a separate, higher god from Yahweh. The Docetic Christians thought Jesus was an image, not a flesh-and-blood person (they are condemned in 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7). The Ebionite Christians thought Jesus was a mortal adopted by God as a son (echoes of this are found in the current version of Matthew).

Would people believe that Jesus was resurrected even though he wasn't? See the Elvis sightings of today.

Would people have been willing to die for their beliefs? See the Jim Jones cult, Hale-Bopp cult and the David Koresh cult.

What about the "empty tomb"? Which one? There are at least two that I know of, one claimed by the Catholics and one the Protestants.

Could false stories about Jesus have been circulated? See Washington and the cherry tree.

Hope that helps.