If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[psstein]

"In considering the significance of the visions of Jesus, a key question immediately comes to the fore that in my judgment has not been given its full due by most scholars investigating the issue. Why do we have such a strong and pervasive tradition that some of the disciples doubted the resurrection, even though Jesus appeared to them? The reason this question is so pressing is because, as we will see later in this chapter, modern research on visions has shown that visions are almost always believed by the people who experience them.So why were the visions of Jesus not always believed? Or rather, why were they so consistently doubted?

I'm not convinced that there are no resurrection appearances in Mark; the transfiguration may be one of them. Also, there are other reasons why Mark wouldn't have resurrection appearances- his gospel is rather fast-paced. Mark uses the word "euthus," meaning "immediately" or "at once" no less than 42 separate times. I agree with Ehrman that there are doubts reported in Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John. However, I think the interpretation of them makes a lot more sense in the Jewish context. Namely, nobody was supposed to be raised from the dead until the general resurrection.

The secrecy motif in Mark is interesting, but is beyond the scope of our conversation here.

What does Ehrman think about the Witness List in First Corinthians 15? He believes that Paul most probable did receive this "creed" from someone, possibly from James and Peter. Ehrman does not believe that Paul simply made this list up out of "whole cloth". However, Ehrman presents evidence that strongly indicates that this list is very carefully constructed most likely for literary purposes and that it has some very strange oddities in it. Bottom line, Ehrman finds this list no more credible as evidence for the "appearance" of a dead person than the many RCC claims of Virgin Mary sightings.

I'm familiar with this argument. If memory serves, he says that 1 Cor. 15:3-8 is constructed chiastically, which one can argue that it is. I think Ehrman also thinks that it ends with "then he appeared to Cephas," though I don't have my copy of the relevant book available. But let's consider two things: 1. Something constructed in a particular way means nothing about its truth or falsity. It takes an argument beyond "it's constructed like this" to make claims about truth or falsity. Chiasm is also extremely common in oral tradition, as it's an easy way to remember things.

Even if it were a vision/hallucination of some type, you still have to explain how the vision has transformative power. Yes, the disciples may have had a grief hallucination of some type, but the appearances to James and Paul don't seem particularly well founded on that hypothesis. James thought his brother mad, yet somehow ended up as a leader in the early Church. Paul was persecuting the church, yet had an experience that convinced him that Jesus had risen and his actions were wrong.

[Gary]

There are good reasons to think it was controlled even beyond the writing of Mark. You're making the same error that Bultmann and the form critics did, honestly. It's not like everyone dropped dead once Mark was written. The eyewitnesses started to die off around the mid-60s, hence the writing of the gospels.

Anthony Le Donne's book on Historical Jesus and Memory is very good in discussing the role of memory up to and after the gospels.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that there were NO eyewitnesses alive in 70 AD. I'm not even saying that there "probably" were no eyewitnesses alive in 70 AD. All I am saying is this: We have no concrete evidence that any person who witnessed the events surrounding Jesus' death was still alive in 70 AD. That's it.

Many Christians assume that thousands if not tens of thousands of Jews in circa 30 AD were aware of the circumstances of Jesus death and the events which occurred days, weeks, and months shortly after this death. What is this assumption based on? Answer: the stories in the Gospels! But what if this too is a later embellishment by the Gospel authors? Isn't it entirely possible that this is what happened in circa 30 AD:

Jesus had never stepped foot in Judea during the three years of his ministry until his visit that fateful Passover in circa 30-33 AD. No one in Judea knew anything about him. He had come with a small band (20-40) of his Galilean followers. But even in Galilee, he was not the "big deal" that the Gospels make him out to be. He was a small time "dooms-day" peasant preacher from the northern "boonies" who never registered with Jewish authorities until that fateful Passover when he caused a disturbance in the Temple. The Sanhedrin promptly asked the Romans to execute him, which they did. Although Jesus was executed under the authority of Pilate, his name never crossed Pilate's "desk". He was just a number, a number on a list to be executed that week.

The dramatic events of Jesus execution (earthquakes, three-hour eclipse, the walking dead exiting their tombs to roam the streets) as recorded in the Gospels are all embellishments.

Jesus was crucified. He died. His body was left on the cross for several days as was the Roman custom, and then what was left was buried in an unmarked, common grave with other executed criminals, as was the Roman custom. No one but a few Roman soldiers knew the location of Jesus' final resting place, and they never "talked".

Shortly after Jesus' death, one or a couple of Jesus' disciples began having vivid dreams/visions of Jesus returning from the dead to visit them. The small group of grieving, superstitious Galilean peasant followers of Jesus was overjoyed to the point of hysteria, and soon many of the prominent members of the Early Church received appearances from Jesus (in visions/dreams/trances) and even groups of followers claimed to have seen the dead Jesus appear to them, just as countless thousands of Roman Catholics have claimed that the dead mother of Jesus has appeared to groups of them.

The Christian sect began, but continued to be a small group of people. The accounts of thousands of Jews from all over the world converting on Pentecost is another embellishment.

So who of these original handful of believers was still alive in 70 AD? We don't know. But it is possible that none of them were alive and it is possible that some of them were alive, but living in rural Galilee, a long ways away from Rome where the first gospel may have been written, therefore unable to speak out and say, "Hey! There were no earthquakes! There was no three-hour eclipse! There were no dead saints roaming the streets! Who made this stuff up???"

We just don't know, folks, but from the evidence, the above scenario is more probable to be the correct history of the Christian movement than the supernatural story which first appears in print in circa 70 AD.

[Gary]

I'm not convinced that there are no resurrection appearances in Mark; the transfiguration may be one of them. Also, there are other reasons why Mark wouldn't have resurrection appearances- his gospel is rather fast-paced. Mark uses the word "euthus," meaning "immediately" or "at once" no less than 42 separate times. I agree with Ehrman that there are doubts reported in Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John. However, I think the interpretation of them makes a lot more sense in the Jewish context. Namely, nobody was supposed to be raised from the dead until the general resurrection.

The secrecy motif in Mark is interesting, but is beyond the scope of our conversation here.



I'm familiar with this argument. If memory serves, he says that 1 Cor. 15:3-8 is constructed chiastically, which one can argue that it is. I think Ehrman also thinks that it ends with "then he appeared to Cephas," though I don't have my copy of the relevant book available. But let's consider two things: 1. Something constructed in a particular way means nothing about its truth or falsity. It takes an argument beyond "it's constructed like this" to make claims about truth or falsity. Chiasm is also extremely common in oral tradition, as it's an easy way to remember things.

Even if it were a vision/hallucination of some type, you still have to explain how the vision has transformative power. Yes, the disciples may have had a grief hallucination of some type, but the appearances to James and Paul don't seem particularly well founded on that hypothesis. James thought his brother mad, yet somehow ended up as a leader in the early Church. Paul was persecuting the church, yet had an experience that convinced him that Jesus had risen and his actions were wrong.

I understand your skepticism regarding the conversions of Peter and James. It was this issue that was my last thread to my Faith before I deconverted. I just couldn't believe that a devout, well-educated Jewish rabbi would convert to the very sect which he was persecuting with such vehemence. But strange conversions happen, folks. Strange conversions are not proof of a new faith's veracity. Many strange conversions have occurred in history including Jewish clergy converting to Muslim clergy.

Imagine if today an evangelical Christian pastor converts to Islam because he says that a divine being appeared to him on a desert highway and told him that Islam is the true Faith. How thoroughly would you investigate this very strange conversion before writing the man off as mentally unstable??

[DesertBerean]

Let me be clear: I am not saying that there were NO eyewitnesses alive in 70 AD. I'm not even saying that there "probably" were no eyewitnesses alive in 70 AD. All I am saying is this: We have no concrete evidence that any person who witnessed the events surrounding Jesus' death was still alive in 70 AD. That's it.

Many Christians assume that thousands if not tens of thousands of Jews in circa 30 AD were aware of the circumstances of Jesus death and the events which occurred days, weeks, and months shortly after this death. What is this assumption based on? Answer: the stories in the Gospels! But what if this too is a later embellishment by the Gospel authors? Isn't it entirely possible that this is what happened in circa 30 AD:

Jesus had never stepped foot in Judea during the three years of his ministry until his visit that fateful Passover in circa 30-33 AD. No one in Judea knew anything about him. He had come with a small band (20-40) of his Galilean followers. But even in Galilee, he was not the "big deal" that the Gospels make him out to be. He was a small time "dooms-day" peasant preacher from the northern "boonies" who never registered with Jewish authorities until that fateful Passover when he caused a disturbance in the Temple. The Sanhedrin promptly asked the Romans to execute him, which they did. Although Jesus was executed under the authority of Pilate, his name never crossed Pilate's "desk". He was just a number, a number on a list to be executed that week.

The dramatic events of Jesus execution (earthquakes, three-hour eclipse, the walking dead exiting their tombs to roam the streets) as recorded in the Gospels are all embellishments.

Jesus was crucified. He died. His body was left on the cross for several days as was the Roman custom, and then what was left was buried in an unmarked, common grave with other executed criminals, as was the Roman custom. No one but a few Roman soldiers knew the location of Jesus' final resting place, and they never "talked".

Shortly after Jesus' death, one or a couple of Jesus' disciples began having vivid dreams/visions of Jesus returning from the dead to visit them. The small group of grieving, superstitious Galilean peasant followers of Jesus was overjoyed to the point of hysteria, and soon many of the prominent members of the Early Church received appearances from Jesus (in visions/dreams/trances) and even groups of followers claimed to have seen the dead Jesus appear to them, just as countless thousands of Roman Catholics have claimed that the dead mother of Jesus has appeared to groups of them.

The Christian sect began, but continued to be a small group of people. The accounts of thousands of Jews from all over the world converting on Pentecost is another embellishment.

So who of these original handful of believers was still alive in 70 AD? We don't know. But it is possible that none of them were alive and it is possible that some of them were alive, but living in rural Galilee, a long ways away from Rome where the first gospel may have been written, therefore unable to speak out and say, "Hey! There were no earthquakes! There was no three-hour eclipse! There were no dead saints roaming the streets! Who made this stuff up???"

We just don't know, folks, but from the evidence, the above scenario is more probable to be the correct history of the Christian movement than the supernatural story which first appears in print in circa 70 AD.

Why would they ASSUME there were at least thousands of Jews aware of those events? There WERE thousands ... because the Passover was a mandatory gathering for faithful Jews. Anyone who could make the journey had to, and I'm not aware of any blockade in effect at that time. Of course there were huge numbers of Jews who heard and saw Jesus in the temple, and the reports of Lazarus' s return from the dead were passing among the people. Jesus had a lot of attention being paid to him.

[Gary]

Why would they ASSUME there were at least thousands of Jews aware of those events? There WERE thousands ... because the Passover was a mandatory gathering for faithful Jews. Anyone who could make the journey had to, and I'm not aware of any blockade in effect at that time. Of course there were huge numbers of Jews who heard and saw Jesus in the temple, and the reports of Lazarus' s return from the dead were passing among the people. Jesus had a lot of attention being paid to him.

If the stories in the Gospels are true...

But that is the question at hand: Are there embellishments in the Gospels? Therefore your argument is a case Begging the Question. Please provide proof that large numbers of Jews were aware of the events of Jesus' death at the time it happened. I don't think you can. There is no mention anywhere of this event by any contemporary of Jesus. Based on the available evidence, for all we know these stories first appeared circa 70 AD in a book written by an anonymous, educated, Gentile-Greek speaking Christian writing in a distant land, possibly Rome.

I think that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus was crucified, but insufficient evidence that his death was the "big deal" the Gospels make them out to be. Even my esteemed friend, Nick, agrees on this point, I believe.

[Gary]

Stein, I have a question for you. You have indicated that you believe that the following events as recorded in the Gospels are most likely not historical:

---the guards at the Tomb
---the dead saints roaming the streets of Jerusalem.
---Jesus' prophecy that he would rise from the dead after three days and three nights in the grave.
---the three hour eclipse of the sun.

How does this fit into your belief that the original "Jesus Story" was closely guarded for accuracy from the very beginning? In other words, if these embellishments made it into the Gospels, why couldn't other embellishments such as an empty rock-hewn tomb and the detailed appearance stories have also made it into the Gospels without eyewitnesses raising holy "hell" that additions/embellishments had crept into the story?

[DesertBerean]

. Are you questioning if the calender event of Passover itself as reported in the Gospels was falsified? For certainly there were huge crowds of people for Passover, therefore there certainly were a lot of witnesses. There would be plenty of witnesses to say whether or not those events around Passion Week occurred, including the temple officials themselves.

[DesertBerean]

.....and why SHOULD we NOT be considered in need of a Savior?

[Gary]

. Are you questioning if the calender event of Passover itself as reported in the Gospels was falsified? For certainly there were huge crowds of people for Passover, therefore there certainly were a lot of witnesses. There would be plenty of witnesses to say whether or not those events around Passion Week occurred, including the temple officials themselves.

Just because it was Passover doesn't mean that everyone was paying attention to that week's list of Roman crucifixion candidates. There may have been tens of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem on the day Jesus was crucified, but that doesn't mean that anyone was paying attention to who was getting executed that weekend.

[Gary]

.....and why SHOULD we NOT be considered in need of a Savior?

I don't follow?

Why should gorillas not be in need of a Savior?

[DesertBerean]

Hm, ok. Let me put some context on this.

It's clear that we are very different from the rest of the world. Even the apes are not like us. And we are in a whole lot of problems caused by our behavior and our treatment of each other. Why should we not look for a Savior to save us from ourselves?

[Sparko]

so basically this thread has devolved into the same thread as Gary's other threads, making accusations with no evidence and when answered with evidence, dismiss it with "well maybe it was all made up" -- without no evidence for that of course.

same ol', same ol'

YAWN!

[Gary]

Hm, ok. Let me put some context on this.

It's clear that we are very different from the rest of the world. Even the apes are not like us. And we are in a whole lot of problems caused by our behavior and our treatment of each other. Why should we not look for a Savior to save us from ourselves?

If one exists who can "save" us, sure! But the crux of our discussion is whether or not good evidence exists to suggest that such a supernatural entity exists.

[Gary]

so basically this thread has devolved into the same thread as Gary's other threads, making accusations with no evidence and when answered with evidence, dismiss it with "well maybe it was all made up" -- without no evidence for that of course.

same ol', same ol'

YAWN!

What specifically are you referring to?

[Sparko]

What specifically are you referring to?

currently? your passover discussion. the documentary evidence is that there were thousands of witnesses and people in Jerusalem then, yet your counter was "If the stories in the Gospels are true..." and then you provide no evidence that they are not true. Same with everything else you do.