Lately I’ve been wondering about an idea that has recently occurred to me.
As I understand it, at the time of Jesus, some of the Jewish people who believed in the apocalypse, had the following general belief.
Near the end of the world, the messiah would appear. This messiah would be either a great warrior king, a great priest, or both.
After the coming of the messiah, there would be a resurrection of the dead. After which time, judgment would be passed on all people, those living and those resurrected. The good would then get to live in the Kingdom of God and the bad would be cast into hell.
While Jesus was preaching and teaching, some of his followers came to believe that he was the messiah.
After Jesus “left”, and I’m intentionally stating it this way on purpose, his followers then went out to the world to tell the story of Jesus and convince others that Jesus was, in fact, the messiah.
In doing so, one of the first issues that probably came up for them was this. If Jesus was, in fact, the messiah, then where is the resurrection?
Since no resurrection of all the dead was taking place, his followers would have had to come up with some explanation for this. Thus, we get the story that Jesus himself, was resurrected. Along with this, they may have said that this was the beginning of the resurrection. As Paul says, Jesus was the “firstfruits” so to speak.
Now in order for Jesus to be resurrected, he would obviously have had to die first. As a result, along with the Jesus resurrection story, his followers would also have had to explain that Jesus died.
Given this then, did it become necessary for the followers of Jesus to tell this death and resurrection story about Jesus, in order to convince others that he was the messiah?
If so, then what actually happened to Jesus when he “left”? Did he actually die or did something else occur (did he leave the area or move to a different region or country, did he just decide to give up on teaching, etc.)?
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Jesus was crucified. (And I’m an agnostic and a non-theist, not arguing from a Christian point of view.)
As I understand it, belief in a coming Messiah, and belief in a coming Kingdom of God on Earth (which would include a general resurrection) were two separate beliefs. A person might subscribe to one or the other, neither, or both.
Jesus and his disciples subscribed to both. But that didn’t change the fact that the “general resurrection” concept was associated with the Kingdom, not the Messiah. There was never any expectation that the Messiah himself would die and be resurrected. He wasn’t expected to die at any point.
Jesus’s disciples had convinced themselves he was the Messiah, and were doubtless horrified when he died. Was executed, in the most demeaning, humiliating of ways!
But they weren’t willing to give up on the idea that he’d been the Messiah. So they convinced themselves (possibly on the basis of nothing more than dreams) that he’d been resurrected, and had then been taken up bodily into heaven. Then they twisted the meaning of passages in Jewish scriptures to come up with “prophecies” indicating that the Messiah was always meant to be crucified and rise from the dead.
If, as you suggest, Jesus had merely “disappeared,” it’s highly unlikely that disciples wanting to continue calling him the Messiah would have thought of claiming he’d died and risen from the dead. The Messiah wasn’t supposed to do that. But they certainly wouldn’t have claimed, falsely, that he’d been crucified! That was an ignominious death his followers had to struggle to “explain away.”
Wilusa said
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Jesus was crucified. (And I’m an agnostic and a non-theist, not arguing from a Christian point of view.)As I understand it, belief in a coming Messiah, and belief in a coming Kingdom of God on Earth (which would include a general resurrection) were two separate beliefs. A person might subscribe to one or the other, neither, or both.
Jesus and his disciples subscribed to both. But that didn’t change the fact that the “general resurrection” concept was associated with the Kingdom, not the Messiah. There was never any expectation that the Messiah himself would die and be resurrected. He wasn’t expected to die at any point.
Jesus’s disciples had convinced themselves he was the Messiah, and were doubtless horrified when he died. Was executed, in the most demeaning, humiliating of ways!
But they weren’t willing to give up on the idea that he’d been the Messiah. So they convinced themselves (possibly on the basis of nothing more than dreams) that he’d been resurrected, and had then been taken up bodily into heaven. Then they twisted the meaning of passages in Jewish scriptures to come up with “prophecies” indicating that the Messiah was always meant to be crucified and rise from the dead.
If, as you suggest, Jesus had merely “disappeared,” it’s highly unlikely that disciples wanting to continue calling him the Messiah would have thought of claiming he’d died and risen from the dead. The Messiah wasn’t supposed to do that. But they certainly wouldn’t have claimed, falsely, that he’d been crucified! That was an ignominious death his followers had to struggle to “explain away.”
I also think as an agnostic that Jesus definitely was crucified. I find it hard to believe that his disciples would be going around places, risking their lives, had they known that Jesus did not die.
I agree. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Jesus was crucified, since his crucifixion was in fact a huge problem for the early Christian movement’s argument that he was the Messiah: The Messiah wasn’t supposed to die like that.
I believe the Muslim belief is that Jesus didn’t die but was taken up living into heaven, and some Gnostics apparently believed that Jesus wasn’t actually crucified as well, but in both cases Jesus still *appeared* to have been crucified to bystanders.
There’s nothing wrong with either Gnostic or Muslim belief that he was ‘replaced’. They both believe that *someone* was killed.
Now the problem becomes when that *someone* has actually risen from death.
which means either the dose wasn’t lethal enough, or Sparkie wasn’t fully charged,
and in both cases the Romans wouldn’t leave it alone.
xtian belief is problematic in this way.
As crucifixion was a common Roman execution, believing that is no stretch. However; after he was taken away from the Garden of Gethsemane, the story gets muddled. In comparing the gospels after his arrest, there is confusion. Who was at the cross? How close were they – to hear his reported utterances? NOT TO MENTION – who heard and recorded his prayer in John 17 (it is stressed that ALL were asleep)?
The amount of herbs taken to the tomb by Joseph of Arimithea and Nicodemus – either 75 or 100 pounds was EXCESSIVE. Not even the very highly placed individuals had that much herb used on them – healing herbs. Were healers in the tomb WITH him? Did the visiting women see these healers or angels or “young men”? How many of these figures in white – 1, 2? In the tomb, or outside sitting on the rolled away stone? No, these post crucifixion stories don’t ring true, but seem to be wishful thinking pieced together from gossip. And, tombs opening with MANY resurrecting, walking around seen by MANY? Uh. No. That is something historians, such as Josephus, would have loved to tell!
The “swoon theory” with Jesus going to India is the most likely, imo.
walid said
There’s nothing wrong with either Gnostic or Muslim belief that he was ‘replaced’. They both believe that *someone* was killed.Now the problem becomes when that *someone* has actually risen from death.
which means either the dose wasn’t lethal enough, or Sparkie wasn’t fully charged,
and in both cases the Romans wouldn’t leave it alone.
xtian belief is problematic in this way.
Combine that with the one the crowd is said to have shouted to be released – Barabbas…. Bar Abba, Son of the Father.
walid said
There’s nothing wrong with either Gnostic or Muslim belief that he was ‘replaced’. They both believe that *someone* was killed.Now the problem becomes when that *someone* has actually risen from death.
which means either the dose wasn’t lethal enough, or Sparkie wasn’t fully charged,
and in both cases the Romans wouldn’t leave it alone.
xtian belief is problematic in this way.
Suppose we executed someone today, with officials actually standing around and watching the person die, probably verifying he was dead (either Jesus was taken down and buried or left to rot up there — either way, the fact they were dealing with a corpse would have been pretty obvious). Then a small group of that person’s most passionate followers claimed they’d had visions of him raised from the dead. Would US officials today assume the person was actually still alive? I’d be surprised.
I image that once they heard about it at all, the Roman officials figured the early Christians were telling stories, or hallucinating, or maybe that they’d see a ghost. Maybe a few entertained the possibility that Jesus really had been raised from the dead, but he was still dead and there was really no point hunting him down at that point. (You can’t kill someone who’s already dead.) But given that all available evidence suggests that people actually watched Jesus die (even religious groups who believed Jesus didn’t die agree that it certainly looked to all observers like Jesus died) I don’t think the idea that somehow he’d escaped and not died after all is something that the Romans would have worried about.
(Anyway, Jesus was small potatoes, not worth going through any amount of effort over.)
(Would US officials today assume the person was actually still alive? I’d be surprised.)
Example: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Why did they ask for evidence when they killed him themselves?
want others? just in case he was small potatoes, you can do that to anyone who gets killed in jail anywhere in the WORLD!
why do they appoint a doctor to check that the criminal is actually dead after they put him on sparkie?
They can see him dying, stopped breathing, turned brown bread, and yet a doctor works on it AGAIN!
That also goes for my side with jesus not just dying for any old little petty crime, he was a repel! .. AlQaeda of his time!
the Peter who said: “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.”
the real reason why he denied him is apparent here:
(A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,)
(When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” Again he denied it)
(After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.” Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”)
As you can see, the trouble was that being of ‘them’ was a crime by itself, so don’t imagine that gang to hang together after the arrest, they all fled away and prolly never met afterwards! .. unless they were foolish enough to prove the accusation of being one of ‘them’!
Now the crime of being a follower of jesus is pretty much like someone claiming to be an associate of the cowardly attacks on London back in 2007 now. The criminals were crucified on the spot, dead and buried and are roasting in hell or wherever now, end of. Would you imagine anyone (including maniacs) claiming he was one of ‘them’ now?
That’ what the gospels are trying to convince us, not that the 12 (if there was any such group) not only stuck to jesus, but also claimed the authorities were a failure! sparkie didn’t work, our saucy lord is up and running, try again Pilates!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)