In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[Vicki Q]

Which, according to many NT scholars, started out as an earthly apocalyptic claim at the start (which wasn't that remarkable given other contemporary sources that were apocalyptic in theme as well), and then when things didn't occur as predicted, evolved to a more spiritual coming of the Kingdom.

I've reread this a number of times, and you're going to need to unpack it a bit, I'm afraid. There was a series of apocalyptic writings around, and these were read in a variety of ways, but with similar themes. God's people would be forgiven; there would be a victory over God's enemies; there would be judgement etc.

Usually this involved getting the Romans out, but something about a suffering servant and (perhaps) resurrection were lurking. The claims of Judeo-Xianity were consistent with the broad stream of interpretation, but were highly innovative within it. That needs explanation.

And, very importantly, what the early church proclaimed was not any kind of failure that needed explaining away, but a great stonking success. What had been promised had been delivered, but so much more. Not occupying a patch of land in the Middle East, but a claim on the World. The promise to Abraham to be a blessing to the nations fulfilled as a final redemption. This was the claim right from the start, back before Paul's wrote about it, and even before Damascus, being that Jesus had inaugurated the Kingdom.

To me, this seems to be begging the question.

Not really. No-one was expecting an early pre-general-resurrection to be a thing, so it needs explaining.

Even if the belief itself was unique at the time and not very Jewish (and this is a big if), it served early Christianity well to hold to this as a central doctrine. The purported Messiah, after all, failed to save his people from the Roman occupants, as had been hoped for. The Resurrection thesis helped to rescue the early movement from this embarrassment.

Why bother saving it? He's dead, he didn't liberate Israel, so beyond doubt he's not the Messiah. By definition. Moving on ASAP was universal and routine procedure for the followers of dead wannabe Messiahs in C1 Israel.

Again, feels like begging the question.

We have different questions. Mine is where they're getting this odd set of worth-dying-for beliefs from?

...some of the claims you made assume the Resurrection happened and the other claims didn't point to evidence that favors it against other alternative explanations.

The Resurrection is a hypothesis that best explains things, not an assumption.

I'm not sure what alternatives you're proposing. If it's 'this is all made up from scratch and evolved massively over time', could you point me to the evidence for that claim.

---

; that the universe, humanity and God's people had been freed;

Universe was freed? From what?

All the bad stuff was served with an eviction notice. Wars, disease, racism, Manchester United, strokes, rush hour traffic, blindness and the like.

[LastPoet]

I still feel that being a poe is an infantile waste of time

[GrandizerII]

Usually this involved getting the Romans out, but something about a suffering servant and (perhaps) resurrection were lurking. The claims of Judeo-Xianity were consistent with the broad stream of interpretation, but were highly innovative within it. That needs explanation.

According to Bart Ehrman, the suffering servant and resurrection ideas were artifacts of what the disciples observed while also wanting to continue to believe Jesus was the Messiah. They weren't products of some divine creativity.

https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-the-suffering-messiah/

And, very importantly, what the early church proclaimed was not any kind of failure that needed explaining away, but a great stonking success. What had been promised had been delivered, but so much more. Not occupying a patch of land in the Middle East, but a claim on the World. The promise to Abraham to be a blessing to the nations fulfilled as a final redemption. This was the claim right from the start, back before Paul's wrote about it, and even before Damascus, being that Jesus had inaugurated the Kingdom.

Perhaps you should state here what the promise was exactly. You're referring to the Genesis promises to Abraham, aren't you? If so, you'll see that the promise hasn't exactly been delivered if we take a good look at the wording within context.

Why bother saving it? He's dead, he didn't liberate Israel, so beyond doubt he's not the Messiah. By definition. Moving on ASAP was universal and routine procedure for the followers of dead wannabe Messiahs in C1 Israel.

Maybe so, but different circumstances and different observations will yield different outcomes. If you read what scholars have to say, there are good explanations for why this occurred without having to appeal to the divine as an explanation.

I'm not sure what alternatives you're proposing. If it's 'this is all made up from scratch and evolved massively over time', could you point me to the evidence for that claim.

The evidence (if we can call it that) is the same evidence you rely on. This is also a bit of a mischaracterizing of what I actually suggested in the OP.

Note, though, that ultimately there is no good evidence. The sources we have, as you said earlier, are biased. And yet even with these biases, there are indications in the earlier sources that Christianity wasn't what it's generally like now or even a few decades after its onset.

[Vicki Q]

According to Bart Ehrman, the suffering servant and resurrection ideas were artifacts of what the disciples observed while also wanting to continue to believe Jesus was the Messiah.

Agreed. No-one expected the Messiah to suffer. However after the Resurrection, they went back to the OT sources like the prophets, with passages such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, and realised the clues had been there all along. I tend to use this as evidence for the resurrection, so I'm a little puzzled here.

Perhaps you should state here what the promise was exactly. You're referring to the Genesis promises to Abraham, aren't you? If so, you'll see that the promise hasn't exactly been delivered if we take a good look at the wording within context.

Things like the Blessing to Humanity, father of many nations, fulfilling the Covenant, sorting out that nasty business in Adam...

I've reread the relevant passages and I'm not sure problems what you're referring to. Remember that Paul and the whole of the (Jewish) Earliest Church were able to claim the promises had been completely fulfilled, so I would think more modern believers should simply follow the same route.

This is also a bit of a mischaracterizing of what I actually suggested in the OP.

Apologies if I've misunderstood. I think therefore it would be helpful for you to flesh out what you are saying. Could you provide a route map from Good Friday to Paul? In particular:

For C1 Jews, the hot topic was the arrival of the Kingdom of God. The internet forums of the day were stuffed with threads about when it was coming, what it would look like, who would be in it etc.

Then there was this rather vague figure of the Messiah (Anointed One) who would bring in the KoG. Anyone claiming to be that was destined to succeed, because God was with them making sure it happened. Therefore, those who failed could not by definition be the Messiah. Their death said, powerfully and irresistibly, this wasn't the Messiah and the KoG hadn't arrived.

That's the theory- it worked like that in practice too. Josephus' writing, Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5, the first and second Jewish rebellions- failure is not an option. Jesus ended up dying exactly like the other failures.

So if the Earliest Church were saying Jesus was the Messiah, he must have succeeded. How?

Fast forward to Paul, writing 20/25 years later. The Resurrection is so well agreed within the Early Church that there is no trace of debate in his letters. Indeed, he uses it as a fixed point from which to deal with the highly disputed issue of Torah obedience.

Paul claims not only that Jesus is the Messiah, but that the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated...Abraham...forgiveness... etc. The reason we know this has happened is because of the Resurrection, he says. And it's clear from his writing that this has been a thing from long before he wrote. All seems to fit together.

So if you could outline your route map it would be helpful. And please point to the evidence for that explanation.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I wouldn't say the Resurrection is the best explanation.  A better way to put it might be '...belief in the Resurrection...' etc.

If Mickey Maloney goes leprechaun hunting every spring, 'leprechauns' are not the best explanation for this.  Mick's belief in them probably is.

Boru

[GUBU]

The resurrection is the best explanation for the rise of the early church, with the belief set they had.

No it isn't. Many religions, including I suspect christianity, grew out of a con game. And the best exemplar of this particular beginnings for christianity is Saul of Tarsus. He clearly weaves a fantastical and improbable story simply to gain power and followers for himself (a kind of classical Roman Jim Jones if you will).

And there are many other explanations which are far more plausible and valid than a physically impossible "Yeesus came back to loife, goysh!"

[GrandizerII]

According to Bart Ehrman, the suffering servant and resurrection ideas were artifacts of what the disciples observed while also wanting to continue to believe Jesus was the Messiah.

Agreed. No-one expected the Messiah to suffer. However after the Resurrection, they went back to the OT sources like the prophets, with passages such as the suffering servant in Isaiah, and realised the clues had been there all along. I tend to use this as evidence for the resurrection, so I'm a little puzzled here.

Non-Christians Jews would disagree, and many interpret the suffering servant passage to be referring to a nation, not a particular person.

And the Resurrection didn't have to actually happen for the disciples to reinterpret the OT passages, only the belief that it did. So no what you're saying is not evidence for the Resurrection more than it is evidence that the belief in the Resurrection arose from C1 Jews, which no one actually doubts.

Perhaps you should state here what the promise was exactly. You're referring to the Genesis promises to Abraham, aren't you? If so, you'll see that the promise hasn't exactly been delivered if we take a good look at the wording within context.

Things like the Blessing to Humanity, father of many nations, fulfilling the Covenant, sorting out that nasty business in Adam...

Except these are pretty much vague terms that don't make for good prophecies, and nonbelievers have no reason to believe these have occurred. When you want to present evidence for your side, make sure to present evidence that we can all observe (or refer to independent "almost unbiased/neutral" primary sources, at least) because such associated beliefs are not evidence in this case. These are Christian beliefs that we do not hold.

I've reread the relevant passages and I'm not sure problems what you're referring to. Remember that Paul and the whole of the (Jewish) Earliest Church were able to claim the promises had been completely fulfilled, so I would think more modern believers should simply follow the same route.

The problems are clear to me as the sun (mainly that they are vague and very ambiguous), but I understand that you yourself wouldn't see these problems.

This is also a bit of a mischaracterizing of what I actually suggested in the OP.

Apologies if I've misunderstood. I think therefore it would be helpful for you to flesh out what you are saying. Could you provide a route map from Good Friday to Paul?

I don't think there's any need for such. The OP provides an alternative account which covers the initial bases that would otherwise lead to the Resurrection as the conclusion (even if, like the Resurrection, is not really something we know happened). But again, I have to repeat: at the end of the day, we're still going with very biased sources here that contain all sorts of claims not exactly documented elsewhere, especially the Resurrection. The OP was an attempt to nevertheless arrive at a different conclusion while virtually not rejecting the early Mark account of the Resurrection and treating the later Gospel accounts of the Resurrection as reinterpretations of early Mark's account. Whether it was a mistake to go about it in such particular way, the more important point still stands: the Resurrection hasn't conclusively been established as the best explanation.

In particular:

For C1 Jews, the hot topic was the arrival of the Kingdom of God. The internet forums of the day were stuffed with threads about when it was coming, what it would look like, who would be in it etc.

Then there was this rather vague figure of the Messiah (Anointed One) who would bring in the KoG. Anyone claiming to be that was destined to succeed, because God was with them making sure it happened. Therefore, those who failed could not by definition be the Messiah. Their death said, powerfully and irresistibly, this wasn't the Messiah and the KoG hadn't arrived.

That's the theory- it worked like that in practice too. Josephus' writing, Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5, the first and second Jewish rebellions- failure is not an option. Jesus ended up dying exactly like the other failures.

So if the Earliest Church were saying Jesus was the Messiah, he must have succeeded. How?

Fast forward to Paul, writing 20/25 years later. The Resurrection is so well agreed within the Early Church that there is no trace of debate in his letters. Indeed, he uses it as a fixed point from which to deal with the highly disputed issue of Torah obedience.

Paul claims not only that Jesus is the Messiah, but that the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated...Abraham...forgiveness... etc. The reason we know this has happened is because of the Resurrection, he says. And it's clear from his writing that this has been a thing from long before he wrote. All seems to fit together.

And all fitting together with secular analyses as well. Like others have said, and like I said earlier in the post, the Resurrection didn't need to actually happen, only the belief that it did. Bart Ehrman in fact has written a book explaining how it all happened, and I still advise you to read that article I linked to earlier.

[The Grand Nudger]

Goodness, what "clues"...? There aren't any "clues" to be found when the story doesn't end the way we might like, so we go back searching for some way to make an alternate ending fit the previous chapters.

That's a generous reading, assuming there actually was a magic man who actually had a body that really did go poof..somehow..somewhere...somewhen. I really wish that people of faith would think this stuff through. There isn't a single solitary word about a risen demi god in jewish theology. It's kindof not a kosher idea at all. What makes a christian imagine that they would write it in...even if a god told them so?

[Vicki Q]

Non-Christians Jews would disagree, and many interpret the suffering servant passage to be referring to a nation, not a particular person.

It's both the nation and an individual. What's going on here is termed 'sociological representation', in which a person or group represents a group. The England rugby team will represent the nation in the final; David represented Israel in the stand-off with Goliath; and Jesus represented the nation of Israel on the cross. The identification made by the Early Church, although strikingly new, was a more than possible reading within conventional Judaism.

And the Resurrection didn't have to actually happen for the disciples to reinterpret the OT passages, only the belief that it did. So no what you're saying is not evidence for the Resurrection more than it is evidence that the belief in the Resurrection arose from C1 Jews, which no one actually doubts.

If I understand you correctly, we're getting somewhere now. There are those who try to explain the rise of Xianity, with the belief set it has, in a way that requires that the Early Church actually didn't believe in the Resurrection. For reasons I've outlined they would be better looking elsewhere for an explanation, as the evidence here is overwhelming. So given the belief, what caused it?

Things like the Blessing to Humanity, father of many nations, fulfilling the Covenant, sorting out that nasty business in Adam...

Except these are pretty much vague terms that don't make for good prophecies, and  <snip> These are Christian beliefs that we do not hold.

The question I'm asking is not 'have these occurred?', but 'What caused the Early Church to believe they had occurred?'. They are very different questions.

Whether the sources are evangelistically biased or not, they do tell us very reliably what the Early Church believed.

The OP provides an alternative account which covers the initial bases that would otherwise lead to the Resurrection as the conclusion.

The vanishing of the body (explanation mentioned in the OP) is necessary but not sufficient to explain the rise of Xianity with the actual belief set it had. They, like you, would have been aware of numerous possible alternative explanations.

A vanished corpse is not a Resurrection.
A missing body is not the fulfilment of God's promises to Abraham and the world.
An empty tomb does not make Jesus the embodiment of God on earth.

Bart Ehrman in fact has written a book explaining how it all happened, and I still advise you to read that article I linked to earlier.

Feel free to summarise the book, and we'll see how it all goes.
I did read the article, and agreed with it earlier in the thread. It supports everything I've been saying. The question I keep asking which is not looked at in the article, is why the Early Xians concluded Jesus was the Messiah, death had been defeated, and the Kingdom of God inaugurated?

The alternatives just don't make sense. The best explanation for the beliefs of the Early Church is that the Resurrection actually happened pretty much as the Early Church said.

[LastPoet]

Death is irreversible. Anyone questioning that fact, is just trying t deny the undeniable, clenching to a belief in pure fear. Isn't it cosy to fantasise about after lives? Most people do. The moment your brain stops, so starts the decay and rot.

"A human is just a delayed corpse" -Fernando Pessoa.