john76 said
Skeptics have long posited naturalistic explanations for Jesus’ resurrection appearances to Cephas and the Twelve. Maybe, out of terrible grief or some completely natural transcendent mental state, the disciples were hallucinating. On the other hand, maybe the disciples were inventing resurrection stories to lend divine clout to, and carry on, Jesus’ social ethic cause of “loving your neighbor and enemy,” a ethical cause the disciples may have been willing to die for (like Socrates).Historian Richard Carrier characterizes the possibilities in the following way in a recent blog post:“Of course Habermas tries to sell Strobel on the tired apologetic line that “no one dies for a lie.” Surely not, “if they knew it was a hoax,” we hear said. This is a classic straw man. And as such, another lie. It’s one thing to ask how likely it is the resurrection appearance claims were a hoax. It’s altogether another to ask how likely it is they were like every other divine appearance experience in the whole history of all religions since the dawn of time: a mystical inner vision. Just as Paul tells us. Our only eyewitness source. Of course, a case can be made for the apostles dying even for a hoax: all they needed was to believe that the teachings attached to their fabricated claim would make the world a better place, and that making the world a better place was worth dying for. Even godless Marxists voluntarily died by the millions for such a motive. So the notion that no one would, is simply false.” see: ** you do not have permission to see this link **If you are interested, I have outlined the theory that the resurrection stories were “Noble Lies” here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **What do you think? Should we have a naturalistic or miraculous explanation for Jesus’ resurrection appearances?
A problem with this interpretation is that the earliest “Christians” believed that the present world soon would come to an end, showing no interest in reforming this world in its present state through any kind of social/political means. Since that was the primary belief, they would not have invented a noble lie.
as
Stephen said
. . .we have absolutely no access to the motivations. . . .
or likewise in the palpatinesway link,
. . . Anyway, there is no way to determine if the motives of the original Christians were honest or dishonest, . .
I agree with those statements
the blog mentions that
Seneca thought religion though false is useful; author of Book of Joshua thought “Rehab’s lies were ‘good’ “; author of Book of Kings thought ‘God’s use of ‘lying spirit’ is appropriate’, Paul thought it appropriate to use different arguments to convince different audiences to his faith, etc. etc.
Be that as it may, that other people lie I don’t think really is appropriate to accuse/indict the followers of Jesus.
What you seem to be implying is there was ‘some’ conspiracy theory among some of Jesus followers, but who were part of the conspiracy, you don’t implicate, and I have no idea who to guess at.
Peter, and James and John started a conspiracy, then somehow recruited Paul ????
Please go into more details how you think this conspiracy originated and evolved, who were the founders?
gavriel said
A problem with this interpretation is that the earliest “Christians” believed that the present world soon would come to an end, showing no interest in reforming this world in its present state through any kind of social/political means. Since that was the primary belief, they would not have invented a noble lie.
I think the above interpretation is even stranger than you imply! what i understand john76 saying is rather that
“Christians” [DID NOT believe] that the present world soon would come to an end,
In reality they were really a bunch of liars so they only pretended to believe that and they really WERE interested in reforming the world ( like the communists, who are by some analogy (that i didn’t really understand) similar)
tompicard said
I think the above interpretation is even stranger than you imply! what i understand john76 saying is rather that
“Christians” [DID NOT believe] that the present world soon would come to an end,
In reality they were really a bunch of liars so they only pretended to believe that and they really WERE interested in reforming the world ( like the communists, who are by some analogy (that i didn’t really understand) similar)
In the case of various communist/stalinist movements, the use of “noble lies” was notorious, and mostly implied twisting the facts to boost their propaganda value. However, this took place based on an honest belief that History inevitably would move towards socialist and communist phases of development. They felt that it sped up the inevitable.
Contrary to this, the idea of resurrection was intimately linked to the apocalyptic element in the early Jesus movement, because the resurrection was considered to be the spearhead of the coming Kingdom. This is clearly attested by Paul, who probably got his resurrection narratives directly from the inner circle.
If Jesus’ disciples wanted to make a noble lie in order to promote the ethical teaching of Jesus, they would have invented something else.
If Jesus’ disciples wanted to make a noble lie in order to promote the ethical teaching of Jesus, they would have invented something else.
Yeah. ‘Jesus was the Messiah and nevertheless was executed as a common criminal but it’s ok because he rose from the dead!’ doesn’t seem to have been the kind of thing you invent. It was a complete non-starter in first century Jewish Palestine and was in fact a miserable failure. It would be like telling people today you are a visitor from space just to get them to listen to your political opinions. A “noble lie”? I don’t think so.
Stephen said
If Jesus’ disciples wanted to make a noble lie in order to promote the ethical teaching of Jesus, they would have invented something else.Yeah. ‘Jesus was the Messiah and nevertheless was executed as a common criminal but it’s ok because he rose from the dead!’ doesn’t seem to have been the kind of thing you invent. It was a complete non-starter in first century Jewish Palestine and was in fact a miserable failure. It would be like telling people today you are a visitor from space just to get them to listen to your political opinions. A “noble lie”? I don’t think so.
The “noble lie” failed miserably on Jewish home ground because this strange Messiah figure was too inconsistent with most branches of Judaism. However, in gentile environments, the idea of a Godlike figure who identified with the suffering of the poor even to the extent of a complete and self-enacted martyrdom, became a great success. I do not think that Peter and his companions had foreseen this.
john76 said
Skeptics have long posited naturalistic explanations for Jesus’ resurrection appearances to Cephas and the Twelve. Maybe, out of terrible grief or some completely natural transcendent mental state, the disciples were hallucinating. On the other hand, maybe the disciples were inventing resurrection stories to lend divine clout to, and carry on, Jesus’ social ethic cause of “loving your neighbor and enemy,” a ethical cause the disciples may have been willing to die for (like Socrates).Historian Richard Carrier characterizes the possibilities in the following way in a recent blog post:“Of course Habermas tries to sell Strobel on the tired apologetic line that “no one dies for a lie.” Surely not, “if they knew it was a hoax,” we hear said. This is a classic straw man. And as such, another lie. It’s one thing to ask how likely it is the resurrection appearance claims were a hoax. It’s altogether another to ask how likely it is they were like every other divine appearance experience in the whole history of all religions since the dawn of time: a mystical inner vision. Just as Paul tells us. Our only eyewitness source. Of course, a case can be made for the apostles dying even for a hoax: all they needed was to believe that the teachings attached to their fabricated claim would make the world a better place, and that making the world a better place was worth dying for. Even godless Marxists voluntarily died by the millions for such a motive. So the notion that no one would, is simply false.” see: ** you do not have permission to see this link **If you are interested, I have outlined the theory that the resurrection stories were “Noble Lies” here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **What do you think? Should we have a naturalistic or miraculous explanation for Jesus’ resurrection appearances?
john76 said
And the “noble lie” theory of Christian origins is as old as the religion itself (see Matthew 28:11-15).It is also (questionably) attributed to Pope Pious X, quoted in John Bale, Acta Romanorum Pontificum “For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie.” Whether Pope Pious actually said this or not, it still shows the “noble lie” theory of Christian origins was definitely present in history.The permission of lying under special circumstances would not separate the Hebrew and Christian scriptures from other ancient spiritualities. It would actually put them all very much in line.The justification of lying hypothesis is very interesting. It resonates with much in spirituality … even shamanism …where the neophyte is taken in with ‘magic’ to attract their attention and then is taken to the Truth… and the understanding that what they initially through was magic was simply deception … and the recognition of how early they were deceived.Justified lying occurs a lot in ancient spirituality. Confucius, in the ‘Analects,’ indicates “The Governor of She said to Confucius, ‘In our village we have an example of a straight person. When the father stole a sheep, the son gave evidence against him.’ Confucius answered, ‘In our village those who are straight are quite different. Fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. In such behaviour is straightness to be found as a matter of course.’ (13.18)” .This is also true of the Code of Manu. Roger Berkowitz says of the Manu based society, that its division of society into four castes, each with its own particular obligations and rights, is a desired end because it reflects the natural order of society. He says ‘“The order of castes, the highest, the most dominant Gesetz, is only the sanction of a natural-order, natural legal- positing of the first rank, over which no willfulness, no ‘modern idea’ has power. It is nature, not Manu or the Brahmin legislators, that divides the predominantly intellectual from those who are predominantly physically or temperamentally strong, and both of these from the mediocre, who are extraordinary in neither intellect nor strength. The ancient Indian caste system is an artifice, a Holy Lie—but it is a lie that serves natural end.’Similarly, we see the permission of lying in Islam. In the Pro-Muslim book ‘The Spirit of Islam,’ Afif A. Tabbarah writes, concerning the mandates of Muhammed, ‘Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet Muhammed says: ‘He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.’
You may call it whatever you like: strong emotional bias, wishful thinking, illusions or noble lies or whatever. The task of the historian is to apply the criteria to detect what most likely was close to what really happened. The criteria do not change and cannot tell the difference between hallucinations, wishful thinking and noble lying. They are in the same can of accepted/discarded elements. Even today you can see that doomsday sectarians seldom leave on a failure. They go back to the drawing table, and the more singleminded members await the revised predictions from their leaders. Soon the revisions appear obvious to all.
The conclusion is that the claimed resurrection experiences did make a turning point, and made at least a solid majority of the disciples return to their mission. That says nothing about the true nature of the experiences.
john76 said
And we know the religious people of that time were constantly lying to get their message across. Just read Bart Ehrman’s two books:(1) Forged: qid=1493169026&sr=8-1&keywords=forged+ehrman
and
(2) Forgery and Counter Forgery: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I have both. I don’t think he says that Paul, in his authentic letters , is constantly lying. In fact there are probably no lies at all in those letters. Mistakes, probably, but that’s another story.
“4Then Jesus told them, ‘A prophet is without honor only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household.’ 5So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them.” Mark 6:4-5″
john76 said
You think Jesus is a trustworthy character?Then why does Mark portray Jesus as a fallible human prophet who couldn’t perform miracles in his home town? :
“4Then Jesus told them, ‘A prophet is without honor only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household.’ 5So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them.” Mark 6:4-5″Jesus’ family knew there was nothing particularly “miraculous” about Jesus (having been around him all his life), so they didn’t come to him for miracles.So if we have a widely successful faith healer like Jesus whose family knows Jesus is nothing special, what are we to think?Perhaps Jesus was just a sham faith healer, just like every other faith healer in history.
The rejection of Jesus by his kinsfolk and hometown people is generally held to be part of Marks theology (According to Mark he is rejected and misunderstood by most people) , so these parts of Mark do not pass the criteria of authenticity. He was probably practicing as a healer, in some way. In real history, his brother James carried on the business after Jesus’ death.
Stephen said
For the third or fourth time let me just point out that we have no access whatsoever to the inner motivations of these ancient writers. Any hypothesis, however clever, that begins by assuming a specific motivation on their part is a non-starter.
In the case of Mark, yes. In the case of 2.Peter, definitely some sort of a noble lie.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert