In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[GrandizerII]

[snowtracks]

The Apostle John was exiled to the island of Patmos by the Romans, where he received from God the visions that comprise the book of Revelation. Before writing those revelations, Christ, post resurrected, visited John and said:  -     I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of Hades and of death. -  Rev 1:18.
After reading that verse, people will then have anecdotal evidence (within themselves) of what was read is right and truthful.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's probably sillier to believe that than it is to believe in a magic book. I'd love to hear other peoples opinions.

Whomever wrote revelation didn't write the gospel of john, and this was recognized by proto christian authority before there was an early church. Before the beliefs we call christian were codified. However, because of the popularity and theological utility of both stories, as well as the imagined pedigree of the apostolic author..both were included and attributed to him in spite of this.

Additionally, neither revelation or john, were written by john the apostle.

So..as above, is it sillier to believe that a god inspired a story...or that a rural fisherman who wrote no stories...wrote two stories...that were definitely written by separate authors?

It's always the little hidden miracles behind the miracle beliefs that amuse me most. Snows over here crediting Cletus for other peoples books, Vicki thinks a missing body led to the NT and beliefs she holds.

[LastPoet]

It's probably sillier to believe that than it is to believe in a magic book.  I'd love to hear other peoples opinions.

Whomever wrote revelation didn't write the gospel of john, and this was recognized by proto christian authority before there was an early church.  Before the beliefs we call christian were codified.  However,  because of the popularity and theological utility of both stories, as well as the imagined pedigree of the apostolic author..both were included and attributed to him in spite of this.

Additionally, neither revelation or john, were written by john the apostle.

So..as above, is it sillier to believe that a god inspired a story...or that a rural fisherman who wrote no stories...wrote two stories...that were definitely written by separate authors?

It's always the little hidden miracles behind the miracle beliefs that amuse me most.  Snows over here crediting Cletus for other peoples books, Vicki thinks a missing body led to the NT and beliefs she holds.

In times were the literacy was far shorter than today, and hearsay was their internet.

[The Grand Nudger]

They still knew bullshit when they heard it, that doesn't take any book learnin lol. We can say that people were less literate.....but there are more literate christians alive today than dead illiterate ones.

It's never been the case that christians or anyone else weren't aware of how much bs their story is riddled with. That's what all that schism and reformation and buddy jesus and simply jesus and just love and relationships with god and whatever other taglines they come up with next are all about.

The earliest mention of christians is very literally a pagan roman official calling them superstitious idiots. Christianity's founding documents are (allegedly) one soap box nutball taking the other soap box nutballs to task for getting everything wrong.

The explanation for christian beliefs in past is remarkably similar to their explanation today. The earlist christians became christian just like Vicki or Snow did..by having it inflicted upon them from a position of authority or leverage.

The notion that a missing body, or a resurrection (or even illiteracy), is an explanation for those beliefs is as unserious an exploration of the subject as one could imagine. Christ actually being resurrected wouldn't have lead to christian beliefs, and we know this. We know this by reference to the actual history of the religion but we can know this conceptually without that -by reference to their own beliefs.

In magic book, people who saw miracles happen in front of their faces....in the ot and the nt..didn't fall to their knees. That wasn't enough to create a belief in them that would require an explanation. As ever, gods ability to fail is about as omni as it gets. The actual existence of the christian god and his actually doing miracles would have little to nothing to tell us about the reasons christians held or hold the beliefs they do then or now. This is due to the fact that the subject of christain belief..is people, not gods, regardless of whether or not there are gods.

[Vicki Q]

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC centuries of high powered scholarship have come up with sensible alternatives...and remember..we're discussing sensible alternatives...to magic.

There's an entire field of study devoted to it. Anthropology.

[GrandizerII]

[Vicki Q]

The standard non-Christian Jewish interpretation is still that Isaiah 53 is about a nation and never a person. There are three other such passages pointing to the Servant as a nation, if you look at these passages within their context.

To repeat: applied to Jesus it is about a nation. That nation is embodied in an individual. Not wishing to go off on a tangent but Jesus is seen as acting as Israel  to do what Israel could not do but had to do. In any case the link gives very clear cases where Jewish non-Christians have applied it to an individual.

But purportedly important Messianic events (such as the Resurrection) aren't contained anywhere in the OT. Doesn't this serve as some evidence against what you're saying?

Resurrection: Daniel 12 Isaiah 26 Hosea 6. Although clues were there in the OT, the idea that an individual would be bodily resurrected before the general resurrection was completely new to C1 Judaism; this raises the fascinating question of where it came from...

The belief kept going because they sincerely believed it and they were successful enough to keep it going.

What did they believe? That he was the Messiah? But he had comprehensively failed at everything. Why on earth would they believe he had succeeded?

I'm not sure what's remarkable about the inauguration of the KoG when there's no evidence this has happened, just Christians believing the KoG has been inaugurated.

Josephus etc- The KoG was absolutely massive in C1 Judaism. You couldn't miss it. As you say, there is no evidence it's happened. So what on earth could convince them it had been inaugurated when quite obviously it hadn't?

Early Christians concluded that death had been defeated because they had concluded that Jesus must have risen.

How? Why? It makes no sense.

Tim addresses how this could have been possible by appealing to common human psychology. He does so near the end of the article

The cognitive dissonance explanation thing has come and definitely gone in academic scholarship.

Tangentially, Festinger's methodology was painfully flawed. Up to a third of the cult were researchers, with all the interference questions that raises. Also, the cult collapsed when the cognitive dissonance became unsupportable. But let's leave all that.

Firstly, none of the other fake dead Messiah followers attempted to keep their man going. Historically we know they ran. Fast. There was nothing to keep going anyway- their man was a fake. There is no hint of any kind of cognitive dissonance in similar groups. Then why was Jesus different?

Fatally for TO'Ns theory, Festinger's studies were about how a group reacts when prophecy fails. But the disciples were saying the prophecy had succeeded. Beyond any success they could have imagined.

The KoG wasn't about taking over a patch of Middle East land, but about God taking back the world. All humanity could share in the promise to Abraham, not just one group of people. The whole universe had been won from the Bad Stuff, not just a military campaign against the Romans.

Whereas Festinger's study concluded that new contradictory material can fail to displace old beliefs, the disciples were saying their beliefs had utterly changed. They weren't like confused 1945 Japanese citizens thinking they'd won, refusing to believe the enemy propaganda. They were like the 1943 Italian forces who one month were fighting with the Nazis, then changed around and fought against them.

They embraced a total change of thinking, not ran away from it.

Again, what could have caused this utter turnaround?



I'm going to struggle to reply quickly over the next few weeks. I say this not to end the discussion, but because I'd like to continue it; I'll post when I can. Keep an eye open...

[GrandizerII]

The standard non-Christian Jewish interpretation is still that Isaiah 53 is about a nation and never a person. There are three other such passages pointing to the Servant as a nation, if you look at these passages within their context.

To repeat: applied to Jesus it is about a nation. That nation is embodied in an individual. Not wishing to go off on a tangent but Jesus is seen as acting as Israel  to do what Israel could not do but had to do. In any case the link gives very clear cases where Jewish non-Christians have applied it to an individual.

But it's not the standard interpretation among non-Christian Jews, and those interpretations that are applied to individuals seem a bit strange, as they're not even about a Messiah (for the most part).

Also, the passage in question is so ambiguous that of course you could apply it to any important Jewish individual who ended up dying if you really wanted to interpret it in that way. I don't think you've made a good case against the confirmation bias argument yet.

But what I keep pondering is why not make these prophecies precise, specific, and clear as the sun on what exactly they're pointing to? If a prophecy doesn't fulfill such criteria, it's not really a good prophecy, it's a bad one. Because then, anyone could go back to the Old Testament and reinterpret its passages in any way they see fit in accordance with their own current beliefs that they already hold.

But purportedly important Messianic events (such as the Resurrection) aren't contained anywhere in the OT. Doesn't this serve as some evidence against what you're saying?

Resurrection: Daniel 12 Isaiah 26 Hosea 6. Although clues were there in the OT, the idea that an individual would be bodily resurrected before the general resurrection was completely new to C1 Judaism; this raises the fascinating question of where it came from...

Clues. That's part of the problem there, Vicki. None of these passages straightforwardly talk about a Messiah that is meant to die for our sins and then be risen from the dead by the power of God.

Daniel 12 isn't about a Messiah, and if it was about a Messiah (and Michael is supposed to be that Messiah), it doesn't say that such a Messiah will die and then rise from the dead.

Isaiah 26 doesn't have anything to do with the Messiah. Neither does Hosea 6. And if they are now interpreted as Messianic by Christians (and about the Resurrection of the Messiah), it's because they have been reinterpreted in light of later theological beliefs, not because these passages literally point to a Messiah. Again, we're dealing with the problem of confirmation bias (along with the problem of a failed Messiah) here, something I don't think you have contested very well.

The belief kept going because they sincerely believed it and they were successful enough to keep it going.

What did they believe? That he was the Messiah? But he had comprehensively failed at everything. Why on earth would they believe he had succeeded?

Again, Tim addresses this in his Quora post. I'll discuss your rebuttal to this down below.

I'm not sure what's remarkable about the inauguration of the KoG when there's no evidence this has happened, just Christians believing the KoG has been inaugurated.

Josephus etc- The KoG was absolutely massive in C1 Judaism. You couldn't miss it. As you say, there is no evidence it's happened. So what on earth could convince them it had been inaugurated when quite obviously it hadn't?

The framework that allows for these beliefs. You don't need something to be objectively true in order for you to believe it is true.

Early Christians concluded that death had been defeated because they had concluded that Jesus must have risen.

How? Why? It makes no sense.

It makes sense to me, but this could partly be because I've studied quite a bit of human psychology, having majored in it.

Still, I'm sure you have a very good level of imagination, Vicki. Don't try to limit it and then say no other explanation/account can make sense.

Anyway, more on the psychology bit below.

Tim addresses how this could have been possible by appealing to common human psychology. He does so near the end of the article

The cognitive dissonance explanation thing has come and definitely gone in academic scholarship.

Really? This is news to me.

Tangentially, Festinger's methodology was painfully flawed. Up to a third of the cult were researchers, with all the interference questions that raises.

Well, this is participant observation for you. I'm sure they tried their best to control for interference factors, though.

Also, the cult collapsed when the cognitive dissonance became unsupportable. But let's leave all that.

This is more to do with the various situational factors that can either make or break a cult long-term, but the research wasn't about long-term maintenance of a cult after a failed prophecy. It was about the short-term. So yes, I agree we should put this aside because it's an irrelevant objection.

Firstly, none of the other fake dead Messiah followers attempted to keep their man going. Historically we know they ran. Fast. There was nothing to keep going anyway- their man was a fake. There is no hint of any kind of cognitive dissonance in similar groups. Then why was Jesus different?

Different situational factors will contribute to differences in outcomes. Some religious leaders have historically founded religions ages ago that end up thriving successfully to this day, but most will fail to accomplish such.

Fatally for TO'Ns theory, Festinger's studies were about how a group reacts when prophecy fails. But the disciples were saying the prophecy had succeeded. Beyond any success they could have imagined.

Not according to reality (in my view). The disciples most likely did feel disappointment at the start, probably going through some psychological crisis. We're talking about a Messiah who failed to physically deliver his people after all.

The KoG wasn't about taking over a patch of Middle East land, but about God taking back the world. All humanity could share in the promise to Abraham, not just one group of people. The whole universe had been won from the Bad Stuff, not just a military campaign against the Romans.

Doesn't this remind you of how the cult that was researched by Festinger justified their failed prophecies?

Whereas Festinger's study concluded that new contradictory material can fail to displace old beliefs, the disciples were saying their beliefs had utterly changed. They weren't like confused 1945 Japanese citizens thinking they'd won, refusing to believe the enemy propaganda. They were like the 1943 Italian forces who one month were fighting with the Nazis, then changed around and fought against them.

They embraced a total change of thinking, not ran away from it.

Again, what could have caused this utter turnaround?

I'm not seeing it, sorry. They had to change things around to get their faith going. The Messiah failed to deliver from the Romans, so the belief of deliverance had to change to be more spiritual, and the belief that the Messiah has risen served as a positive trigger to do so.