Habeas Corpus, Pt. 2

A few other brief statements I want to comment on:

“None of the gospels or Epistles mentions anyone dying for their belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus.”
Plainly stated, there are plenty of places in the New Testament that deal with people dying for their faith.  Furthermore, in order to claim there is no record of this happening, ATB has to deny the same historians he has previously called the “scholarly.” That Christians died in the colosseums is a well known fact, historically.  Historians don’t typically argue about whether or not Christians died for their beliefs.

“Finally, when we examine the Gospel record closely, it becomes apparent that the physical nature of the resurrection was a growing legend, becoming more and more fabulous over time, a good sign that it wasn’t the original story.”

Again, I don’t concede this, and I didn’t see enough information here historically to compel me to believe this was the case.  One of the strongest pieces of information, historically, for the resurrection is the lack of competing burial stories.  Historically, if the event were a fraud, there would be competing burial stories.  That is not the case with the resurrection.  They are simply four accounts written at four times by authors with four audiences. The authors chose what parts of the narrative they would tell.  It is redaction, nothing more.

“The claim that a person is resurrected was not absurd for this society.”

I don’t think so.  That claim is always absurd.  The fact that the Sadducees didn’t believe in a bodily resurrection, even in the end times, is indicative of this.  In the book of Acts, Gamaliel, a Pharisee who believed in a bodily resurrection in the end times as part of his eschatology (end times beliefs), notes that there have been many people before who have claimed to be the Messiah, and time always reveals the nature of the people who made the claim.  I don’t see any evidence compelling me to believe that the belief in a bodily resurrection was any more absurd then than it is now.  The only reasons someone would make a claim like that (a bodily resurrection) is if they were insane or telling the truth.  I think ATB might be overstating the ‘superstitions’ of the people.

“What I suspect happened is something like this:”

Alright.  We’ve conceded now that everything that follows in this line is conjecture.  I do appreciate that ATB makes his own hypothesis here.  Now the question becomes, is his hypothesis better at covering all the available facts better than some other hypothesis.

“Since religious trust was won in those days by the charisma of speakers and the audience’s subjective estimation of their sincerity, it would not be long before a charismatic man, who heard the embellished accounts, came into a position of power, inspiring complete faith from his congregation, who then sought to defend the story, and so began the transformation of the Christian idea of the resurrection from a spiritual concept to a physical one – naturally calling themselves the “true church” and attacking all rivals, as has so often happened in history. “

Again, no proof of this claim.  I don’t agree with this claim.  I don’t think for a second that people would have followed a charismatic speaker en masse who didn’t pony up to some larger standard of truth, even if truth in this case is subjectively judged.  The am-haretz of the Judean and Galilean hillsides had a thousands of years old tradition in rigid monotheism.  Anyone butting up against that would have their work cut out for them, charismatic or not.  This claim also assumes a spiritual resurrection, a claim that is never made in any of the Gospel accounts, and is a claim which I don’t find sufficient proof to accept.  As I see it, if there was any transformation, it was made in distinction to the Gnostics and folks of that ilk, who wanted to prove that Jesus had never been a real man, and was only a spirit.  Paul and John wrote in some instances specifically to combat these claims in their earliest forms, reinforcing the facts of the physical resurrection.

So I would reason that a god of all humankind would not appear in one tiny portion of the Earth, in an uneducated and credulous time, revealing himself to a tiny unknown few, and then expect the billions of the rest of us to take their word for it, and not even their word, but the word of some unnamed person many times removed.

Finally, we come to it.  I would argue that the timing of the coming of Jesus Christ was one of the facts that argue for his divinity, in terms of strength.  There was a common Law (Romans), excellent roads (Roman), a common language used throughout the empire (Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the day), and the list goes on.  Basically, these argument simplifies down to a crude empiricist argument.  “If God didn’t show up in our times, I’m not going to believe.  I can’t believe that a bunch of 1st century Jews could have actually done what any normal person would do in this instance, and record the amazing facts of what happened, and then go out and die for their surety in the historicity of the events.  Until God shows up to me in person, and explains every intricacy of the right belief, I will not believe it.”  A common sentiment.  An understandable one.  But I don’t believe it is the option that best covers all of the available facts.  As s

oon as I have time, I will post my case for the physical resurrection.  Until then, comments and questions are welcomed.