Someone stole the body!

[Crossless2.0]

You forgot about the near-death experience of the entire franchise in part 5. 

What part 5? No such thing.

You don't remember Tommy "The Machine" Gunn? I've been trying to forget.

[Pat Mustard]

And Rocky loses a split decision but gains self-respect and the love of his life.

But he wins in the sequel against the same opponent. And someone important dies in part 3, another in part 4, and yet another in part 6. I'm so evil.

And Verbal Kint is Luke Skywalker's father.

[Vicki Q]

The earliest "visions" of Jesus were those of Paul and were non-physical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion...e_accounts

The appearances to the disciples came before the appearance to Paul. Paul's writings use the egeiro and anastasis 'physical' terms applied to the resurrection. No-one is claiming that the appearance to Paul was seen as physical, but all sources, including Paul, agree that the appearances to others were.

As I stated in another thread of mine, thousands of individuals claim to have been abducted by aliens, and in those accounts, their descriptions of the aliens are much more vivid and physical than anything found in the New Testament.  Now, do you accept those testimonial accounts, those of alien abductees?

Actually, that's the most thoughtful question I've seen for a long time.

I would need to study the accounts in more detail than I have time for, but my vague understanding is this:

Alien abductions (AAs) seem to begin once fiction and mass media are available to suggest, and continue suggesting, such things to the population. By contrast, the idea of resurrection was pretty much unknown before Jesus, although as with AAs, once started, resurrection accounts become much more common.

Once in the public imagination, one would expect a small proportion of the large population to get involved in AAs. That's people for you.

Vivid isn't necessarily good for an eyewitness account (the 'true' ones tend to be muddled and vague). I would also expect some form of corroborative evidence by now (esp. neutral witnesses). You might reject it as inadequate (and in some cases we would agree), but unusual supporting phenomena have gone on for a couple of thousands of years of Xianity.

I'm not sure what “more physical” means; both of them were physical (Jesus eating fish and chips etc).

AA accounts don't seem to do much more than produce minor personality changes. The resurrection accounts produced a total overhaul in religious belief, national understanding, and understanding of death etc etc ad nauseam etc.

People who believe they have been abducted by aliens usually have previous New Age beliefs, a vivid fantasy life, and suffer from sleep paralysis, according to a 2003 study by Harvard University.

Those claiming the resurrection were in for a short life of pain and suffering. Large bald men with hard faces and hard baseball bats would turn up at night to engage in theological debate. Not something to hold on to if you can avoid it. AA claimants get a little mild ridicule, but can also get free drinks and a hero's welcome at UFO conferences.

[Whateverist]

"Someone stole the body!"

Not a mystery. They put it into crackers they feed to Catholics every Sunday. Must have been one helluva big body or else those crackers have no measurable protein.

[Jehanne]

The earliest "visions" of Jesus were those of Paul and were non-physical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion...e_accounts

The appearances to the disciples came before the appearance to Paul. Paul's writings use the egeiro and anastasis 'physical' terms applied to the resurrection. No-one is claiming that the appearance to Paul was seen as physical, but all sources, including Paul, agree that the appearances to others were.

As I stated in another thread of mine, thousands of individuals claim to have been abducted by aliens, and in those accounts, their descriptions of the aliens are much more vivid and physical than anything found in the New Testament.  Now, do you accept those testimonial accounts, those of alien abductees?

Actually, that's the most thoughtful question I've seen for a long time.

I would need to study the accounts in more detail than I have time for, but my vague understanding is this:

Alien abductions (AAs) seem to begin once fiction and mass media are available to suggest, and continue suggesting, such things to the population. By contrast, the idea of resurrection was pretty much unknown before Jesus, although as with AAs, once started, resurrection accounts become much more common.

Once in the public imagination, one would expect a small proportion of the large population to get involved in AAs. That's people for you.

Vivid isn't necessarily good for an eyewitness account (the 'true' ones tend to be muddled and vague). I would also expect some form of corroborative evidence by now (esp. neutral witnesses). You might reject it as inadequate (and in some cases we would agree), but unusual supporting phenomena have gone on for a couple of thousands of years of Xianity.

I'm not sure what “more physical” means; both of them were physical (Jesus eating fish and chips etc).

AA accounts don't seem to do much more than produce minor personality changes. The resurrection accounts produced a total overhaul in religious belief, national understanding, and understanding of death etc etc ad nauseam etc.

People who believe they have been abducted by aliens usually have previous New Age beliefs, a vivid fantasy life, and suffer from sleep paralysis, according to a 2003 study by Harvard University.

Those claiming the resurrection were in for a short life of pain and suffering. Large bald men with hard faces and hard baseball bats would turn up at night to engage in theological debate. Not something to hold on to if you can avoid it. AA claimants get a little mild ridicule, but can also get free drinks and a hero's welcome at UFO conferences.

First of all, you're idea of Roman persecutions of early Christians is just plain false.  Roman persecutions of Christians were isolated; the Empire, in fact, respected the catacombs of the early Christians.  The earliest mentions of any disciples of Jesus being martyred were from the apocryphal accounts of the mid to late 2nd century, which no historian accepts.  Of course, Paul mentions the "appearances" of Jesus to the other disciples (1st Corinthians 15) and nowhere does he differentiate at all the appearance of Jesus to him (which is entirely consistent with an epileptic seizure) from those which the other disciples experienced.  In fact, we can interpret Paul's words as indicating that his experience was identical to that of the other disciples. In addition, Jesus was not the first individual to be "resurrected" from the dead and ascend into Heaven; multiple attestations of such accounts predate Jesus by centuries.

You're dismissal of alien abduction experiences is most intriguing; to expand things a bit, do you accept the "apparitions" of the Blessed Virgin Mary, such as ostensibly occurred with the Miracle of the Sun (some 70,000 witnesses), Lourdes, etc., or the visions of Sister Faustina?  Just google those for more information.

As for the later descriptions of Jesus' resurrection appearances, everyone agrees that there was embellishment upon embellishment from Mark to Matthew/Luke to John, and finally, the Gospel of Peter, which has a mile-high cross emerging from the tomb; just curious if you accept that later account?  In addition, we have the "zombie resurrection" accounts in Matthew; just curious if you accept that, along with the earthquake and darkness over Jerusalem, events which no one else bothered to record?

By the way, the followers of Charles Manson claims that he had levitated a bus over a ravine; just curious if you accept those accounts, also?

[Vicki Q]

First of all, you're idea of Roman persecutions of early Christians is just plain false.  Roman persecutions of Christians were isolated; the Empire, in fact, respected the catacombs of the early Christians.  The earliest mentions of any disciples of Jesus being martyred were from the apocryphal accounts of the mid to late 2nd century, which no historian accepts.

The NT, of course, talks about persecutions of Xians, writing within easy living memory. We have Nero's 64AD persecution (Suetonius),  Josephus Antiquities (93/94 AD) mentions the earlier stoning of Jesus brother, and Pliny's Epistulae X.96 (110AD) discusses the torture and other routine nastiness to Xians. Those are just the ones off the top of my head.

The Xian message said to the Jewish authorities that the Jesus messianic movement was still very active. To the religious authorities that the Temple was no longer relevant. To the Zealots and Pharisees that following Torah was unnecessary. To the Jewish nation that being Jewish wasn't a passport to God's Kingdom. To the Romans that Jesus, not Caesar was king, and to the city states that the gods that protected them were to be ignored.

Pretty much anyone in the Mediterranean with a history of violence regarded hurting you as their duty. The best modern parallel would be wandering around Tehran, wearing FSM tee-shirts, preaching that Islam has got it wrong.

Of course, Paul mentions the "appearances" of Jesus to the other disciples (1st Corinthians 15) and nowhere does he differentiate at all the appearance of Jesus to him (which is entirely consistent with an epileptic seizure) from those which the other disciples experienced.  In fact, we can interpret Paul's words as indicating that his experience was identical to that of the other disciples

1 Corinthians 15 he sensibly chooses a word to cover both types of appearance on his list. To repeat what I said earlier, Paul's appearance wasn't physical, but his choices elsewhere of egeiro and anastasis confirms the Gospel accounts that the others were.

In addition, Jesus was not the first individual to be "resurrected" from the dead and ascend into Heaven; multiple attestations of such accounts predate Jesus by centuries.

I'd be interested for you to give examples. Please choose your best two; best avoid the relevant Wikipedia page, because I've been there, undone that.
 

...to expand things a bit, do you accept the "apparitions" of the Blessed Virgin Mary...Lourdes...visions of Sister Faustina...Gospel of Peter, which has a mile-high cross..."zombie resurrection" accounts in Matthew...Charles Manson

With apologies, but I'm really not up for thoroughly researching every fringe theory. Three I can do off the top of my head- Gospel of Peter, no (for the reasons it never became canonical); Matthew's pre-resurrection appearances would need a long answer; appearances of the BVM dunno.
One final, inevitable, one:

Loch Ness monster, no. ( Go there- it's a lovely place to visit, and you can find out why not at the display).

[Minimalist]

The NT, of course, talks about persecutions of Xians, writing within easy living memory. We have Nero's 64AD persecution (Suetonius),  Josephus Antiquities (93/94 AD) mentions the earlier stoning of Jesus brother, and Pliny's Epistulae X.96 (110AD) discusses the torture and other routine nastiness to Xians.

Then you need to examine the top of your head.  Suetonius, was a second century writer who definitely wrote about "Chrestus" at one point and probably referred to Chrestians at another.  (We know that the original wording of Tacitus' supposed Annales commentary was "Chrestianos" thanks to the invention of ultra-violet light.)  Unlike christos we actually have archaeological evidence of "chrestians" in Rome in the early first century.  What we do not have are artifacts of a xtian presence in the first century, such as xtian catacombs.

Josephus, and leaving aside the brother of christos nonsense, is speaking of a power play within the Sanheddrin.  One high priest is fucking with another.  BTW, if you read the passage carefully you'll note that no where does Josephus say that the stoning was carried out. In fact, he notes that

but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;

Exactly how long do you think it would take to get from the temple to the king's palace.  Jerusalem was not that big!  In any event, Herod Agrippa removed Ananus as high priest and gave the job to Y'shua bar Damneus.... who is probably the person referred to in the awkward passage that you guys love to hang your hats on!

As far as Pliny goes, the "torture" was reserved to two female slaves who were called deaconesses.  Sad to say, this had nothing to do with jesusism but was a standard practice in Roman law.  Testimony from slaves had to be obtained under torture.  It's sort of the Dick Cheney approach to jurisprudence.

While you are at it, you should consider the reply of Emperor Trajan:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

You know, I would far prefer Trajan on our Supreme Court to the late Scalia and his nazi buddies.

[Jehanne]

With apologies, but I'm really not up for thoroughly researching every fringe theory. Three I can do off the top of my head- Gospel of Peter, no (for the reasons it never became canonical); Matthew's pre-resurrection appearances would need a long answer; appearances of the BVM dunno.
One final, inevitable, one:

Loch Ness monster, no. ( Go there- it's a lovely place to visit, and you can find out why not at the display).

I find it absolutely incredible that you would discount modern-day claims to encounters with the supernatural, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary's supposed apparitions at Fatima and in Egypt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

And, yet, you think that there is a historical case to be made about a man (Paul) whose experiences are entirely consistent with temporal lobe epilepsy and then appeal to the Gospels, which were authored by anonymous, non-eyewitness Greek speaking Christians some 40 to 100 years after the events that they purport to narrate, which are full of historical inaccuracies and contradictions, and which themselves went through a century or more of embellishments, redaction and modifications.

Sorry, but I don't buy it; I don't think that anyone else should, either.  By the way, you never answered my question about the multiple resurrection appearances in Matthew; do you believe those to be historical?  And, nothing that you said in your reply above contradicts the modern scholarly consensus that the Roman persecutions of Christians were sporadic and episodic events and were more political than religious persecutions.

[Minimalist]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephu...ml#tacitus

[Vicki Q]

My goodness! I had forgotten the persecution issue was a sensitive issue for atheists, and care is needed in how things are said.

There was no systematic persecution of the first few generations of the Early Church. However (and there is a difference) it was still very dangerous to be a Xian, up to and including death. I explained why this was the case in my previous post, and I would ask you please to reread that. The theory there is backed up by the evidence.

To review the cases I put forward:

The NT accounts, treated with care like other historical documents, are consistent and clear. Paul's personal experiences in his letters were particularly eye-watering. We are looking at multiple attestation of sources and forms, more than enough to secure what I said, alone.

AD 64 was a very bad year to be a Xian:  http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm

Every proper historian I looked at said James was killed, but it's irrelevant. That he was sentenced to be stoned makes the point very clearly that bad things were happening to Xians.

And to requote your Pliny “if they are denounced and proved guilty [of being Xians], they are to be punished”.

Jehanne:

I didn't discount the BVM appearances- I said “dunno” which means “Don't know”.

Paul's 'Jesus voice' was heard by his companions, and I don't think scales on eyes are a symptom of epilepsy.

The integrity of text of the Gospels is remarkable by comparison to other ancient texts. This would need a thread of its own, but for example with Caesar's Gallic War, there are only 10 good MSS and the oldest is 900 years after Caesar. By contrast, there are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing.

On the Matthew 'zombie' risings; I did say that any answer would have to be long. I distrust and dislike trying to compress a lengthy, detailed, nuanced answer into a couple of lines. So I won't.

In the ancient world, religious persecutions were political ones.



We seem to have moved on from the OP of “Did the disciples see a vision”. I have to say that if Xianity is wrong, this would be the first place I'd look for how it started.

What I'll take from all this, apart from an excellent question about aliens, is that even the best alternative explanation doesn't really come close to credibility.

YMMV, as we used to say when it was fashionable.