How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Minimalist]

Christians will protest that no one would make up the story of the resurrection, but they do in fact come up with all sorts of fictional details to promote their faith. To take a few trivial cases, I have received an email which presents the young Albert Einstein as a defender of the Christian faith against his atheistic professor although Einstein was a non-observant Jew who explicitly disavowed any belief in a personal God. Or there is Lady Hope's well-known story of Charles Darwin's deathbed reversion to Christianity, although Darwin's children say she was nowhere near the great scientist in his last years.

Xtians are famed liars, X-P.

[Godscreated]

Indeed if all four were exactly the same, you'd claim it was invented by one person and then copied verbatim by others.

Of course we would; that would be what anyone would assume if the accounts were identical. The fact that the accounts are similar on many of the main points yet vary on the details does not, to me, strike me as out of the ordinary for the circumstances described. The event that they describe is the issue, and if we were to consider it for any other person than Jesus, it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a plausible explanation that does not involve a resurrection or the appearance of supernatural beings.

I think too much is made of the discrepancies in the details of a group of stories whose most critical points are made third-hand and from memories of events that are at least more than a decade past. It is pretty easy to piece together a more plausible story from what is written. Nor is it difficult to imagine motivations for inventing such a story.

I tend to agree with you on most of your statements. The one I have trouble with is about inventing the story. If it were the priest or other authorities I could see it being possible. But, with the common man, who is going to believe tax collectors and fisherman, none had note worthy positions in the community.
The priest and other religious would be able to keep themselves from harm since they basically controlled the religious community where all the problems for the apostles originated. Why would these men invent a story that would cost them their lives or no less than great trouble with the religious community, a community of men that were able to bring death to Jesus. They saw this happen and If Christ was dead in the tomb why still His body to eventually bring death to them. In the Book of Acts the priest and Council gave then the opportunity to deny Jesus, yet their response was to go directly to preaching about Jesus even with the threat on there lives. They all died for their beliefs and were poor, so where was the motive.

GC

[Minimalist]

But, with the common man, who is going to believe tax collectors and fisherman, none had note worthy positions in the community.

Of course, you do understand that shit is part of the story, right? When were jesus' Merry Men invented?

[Aractus]

I tend to agree with you on most of your statements. The one I have trouble with is about inventing the story. If it were the priest or other authorities I could see it being possible. But, with the common man, who is going to believe tax collectors and fisherman, none had note worthy positions in the community.

The tax collector, I suppose much like a Bailiff, did have powers recognized under the Roman law, and so was a "worthy position" - the fact that the Jews despised them means nothing really.

The more important point is the fact that the eye witnesses recorded to the empty tomb are women, and just like invalids, they had no legal recognition under the Roman law (or for that matter Jewish law*) to bare witness to events such as these. So if the story was invented, it should have been invented with somebody who was legally able to bare witness to the empty tomb.

*A note on Jewish law is that yes they could bare testimony, but only when certain conditions were met, and regardless they had much less recognition for baring testimony than men.

They all died for their beliefs and were poor, so where was the motive.

No, they weren't all poor. Some were poor to begin with and others chose to become poor and lead a life of poverty.

Did they all die for the beliefs? No, we don't know that! We know that some of them did, but we also know lots and lots of Jews perished 69-70AD when Jerusalem was taken by siege and they were crucified en mass. And we do know, with near certainty that both Peter and Paul died as martyrs, with Paul almost certainly being beheaded, and I believe Peter was probably beheaded.

Answer me this - was St Peter Jewish or Greek? Can you give me a definitive answer one way or the other? I can't - I can say though that he was probably Jewish. If he was Jewish then he could have been crucified, however if he was a Roman he could not have been.

[Brian37]

This is stupid "Why would they die for a lie"?

You can truly believe in something and STILL BE WRONG.

[Esquilax]

This is stupid "Why would they die for a lie"?

You can truly believe in something and STILL BE WRONG.

What I find particularly funny about this argument is that the theist using it never seems to take into account the people who have died for competing religions.

It's actually a kind of strange quirk of a lot of theist arguments; they seem to be operating under the idea that the particular religion of the arguer is the only one there is, and ever has been.

[Tonus]

I tend to agree with you on most of your statements. The one I have trouble with is about inventing the story. If it were the priest or other authorities I could see it being possible. But, with the common man, who is going to believe tax collectors and fisherman, none had note worthy positions in the community.
The priest and other religious would be able to keep themselves from harm since they basically controlled the religious community where all the problems for the apostles originated. Why would these men invent a story that would cost them their lives or no less than great trouble with the religious community, a community of men that were able to bring death to Jesus. They saw this happen and If Christ was dead in the tomb why still His body to eventually bring death to them. In the Book of Acts the priest and Council gave then the opportunity to deny Jesus, yet their response was to go directly to preaching about Jesus even with the threat on there lives. They all died for their beliefs and were poor, so where was the motive.

I think it depends on what we know about the gospels from sources other than the gospels themselves. Who wrote them? When did they do so? Are all of the characters real, or are they invented, or perhaps some of them are an amalgam of several people? Did the body of Jesus really disappear from his tomb? If it did, was there any alarm about it or did people generally shrug their shoulders because they didn't think anything of it? It seems to me that there is a lot we don't know, and we have to trust the gospels themselves a lot more than is reasonable if we're trying to determine their veracity.

Christianity may have taken a considerable backseat to Jewish concerns for the Romans. The gospel writers seemed to recognize this; deliberate care is taken to show Pilate as innocent of the death of Jesus-- it is the Jews who bully Pilate into handing over Jesus, after they insist on accepting the guilt for his death (and just in case it isn't clear enough, they demand the release of a seditious killer instead). Pilate is the one who identifies Jesus as "king of the Jews," to the disgust of the pharisees. It is a Roman soldier who, at the end, remarks that "this truly was the son of God," even as the temple curtain is being rent in half. It is the Roman Cornelius whose prayer is answered by god and to whom Peter is sent.

The gospel writers are very keen to show Jews in a negative light and Romans (leaders and soldiers in particular) in a positive light. This could be a deliberate attempt to get Roman officials to see Christianity as a useful and non-threatening religion. It did not work very well at the beginning, that is true. But the attempt to hedge their bets gives reason to think that they were less interested in the truth and more concerned about being accommodating to the empire that might have the power to annihilate them.

[Drich]

Christians will protest that no one would make up the story of the resurrection, but they do in fact come up with all sorts of fictional details to promote their faith. To take a few trivial cases, I have received an email which presents the young Albert Einstein as a defender of the Christian faith against his atheistic professor although Einstein was a non-observant Jew who explicitly disavowed any belief in a personal God. Or there is Lady Hope's well-known story of Charles Darwin's deathbed reversion to Christianity, although Darwin's children say she was nowhere near the great scientist in his last years.

Xtians are famed liars, X-P.

and athiest aren't?

---

This is stupid "Why would they die for a lie"?

You can truly believe in something and STILL BE WRONG.

Look at what they (The Apstoles) 'truly believed' and what they died for.

Their deaths centered around their claims to have witnessed all of the stuff (and more) that has been written in the bible. They did not die for faith, they died because they would not recant their claims of Christ deity.

[Silver]

Look at what they (The Apstoles) 'truly believed' and what they died for?

Their deaths centered around their claims to have witnessed all of the stuff (and more) that has been written in the bible. They did not die for faith, they died because they would not recant their claims of Christ deity.

People who are brainwashed will do anything for the cause in which they believe. It does not mean that in which they believe is based in reality.

People die all the time for silly causes.

[Drich]

Look at what they (The Apstoles) 'truly believed' and what they died for?

Their deaths centered around their claims to have witnessed all of the stuff (and more) that has been written in the bible. They did not die for faith, they died because they would not recant their claims of Christ deity.

People who are brainwashed will do anything for the cause in which they believe. It does not mean that in which they believe is based in reality.

People die all the time for silly causes.

What are you talking about? The Apstoles were witnesses of Christ. They died because they would not deny what they saw and were apart of.