tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8693651144690632809.post248187124573947680..comments2023-06-15T02:05:08.776-07:00Comments on OLD-TIME ATHEISM: Resurrection Sundays: How strong is the Hallucination hypothosis?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15313329924527127245noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8693651144690632809.post-54753862856261116512011-10-06T22:48:25.854-07:002011-10-06T22:48:25.854-07:00If you want me to be honest, I honestly don't ...If you want me to be honest, I honestly don't have a clue. I know legends can grow very quickly, so thats a possibility. Of course, another possiblity is that at least one person or group of people made up an appearance. Since I reject the martyr argument, I am certain that at least a bit of fudging was done. Why not- they seemed contempt to make up zombie stories and earthquakes in the book of Matthew. The amount of fudging that was done, however, is beyond me, since I'm not a real historian. Because of this, I usually just concede as many "minimal facts" as possible, just for the sake of argument. I'm just a worst case scenario type of guy, I guess.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16360897119962486447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8693651144690632809.post-44191438227121708402011-10-06T15:32:04.436-07:002011-10-06T15:32:04.436-07:00So, do you think we have to simply go down the lis...So, do you think we have to simply go down the list in 1 Cor 15 and explain each appearance? Or do you think there might have been an earlier historical core on which the list is based on--one with less fantastic group visions and no additions like 'according to the scriptures'?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8693651144690632809.post-30801891270150297572011-10-04T01:17:09.153-07:002011-10-04T01:17:09.153-07:001: Actually- I was gonna discuss the vision to the...1: Actually- I was gonna discuss the vision to the 500 in this post originally! My belief is that, if the vision to the 500 were authentic, it would be VERY easily explainable as a form of mass delusion, or more of a trance. They seem quite interesting while you have it, but than afterwards, the recepients tend to just forget it. Maurice Casey mentions it in his excellent book "Jesus of Nazareth: an independant historian's account of his life and teaching". Here is a link to a review, which sums up the best part of the book so you dont have to buy it!<br /><br />http://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/caseys-jesus-7-visions-of-jesus-resurrection/ <br /> <br />2: Im not sure if I'm reading you properly, but i recall Allison making a similiar argument that we dont know whether the early Jesus movement had any detracters. I think its extremely likely that the more sane ones left, not buying the visions, so only the inner circle and the fanatic ones remained.<br /> <br />3: It seems like Paul could have already secretly believed prior to his "vision". Another path I like is that he had Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, which caused the white flash and the fanatic religiosity. He would blame himself for it, believing that God did it to him because he persecuted the christians. I like this route because it removes a hallucination from the list- for now there are only 5 to account for. Also, It seems like Paul would interpret the events in light of what later christians told him- which is why he percieved it as Jesus, even though it had nothing to do with him.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16360897119962486447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8693651144690632809.post-72614859002253049532011-10-02T18:34:33.402-07:002011-10-02T18:34:33.402-07:00Here are a few rough ideas I've been batting a...Here are a few rough ideas I've been batting around in my head for a while:<br /><br />1. Must we take everything in this passage at face value? Is there no possiblity there is an evolving tradition behind the list of appearances? Take the appearance to 500+. It seems to completely disappear after this passage. Would it not be the ultimate Christian apologetic if it really happened? Would not Matthew, who spins the fantastic tale about the saint coming out of the grave after Jesus' resurrection, at least mention it if he even had passing knowleldge of it? Wouldn't Luke-Acts mention it? If the silence of the evangelists is a clue that it didn't happen, might we suspect that some of the other appearances are legends or exaggerations, based on a few early reports of visions?<br /><br />2. I've read that these verses are something like an early 'creed' of the church. We would do well to remember that religious creeds in general, and Christian creeds in particular (think Nicea) are not formulated without debate and disagreement. Imagine the first reports of vision came from both future church leaders (Peter, James) and other, lesser known followers of Jesus (who are 'all the apostles'? did 'the twelve' include Judas?). We know that 'some doubted'. Might we suspect that the polished list we find here (complete with the addition of 'according to the scriptures' and so on) is the result of a trimming of some appearances, an multiplying of some, and a good smoothing over to present a unified front with Peter and the twelve emphasized?<br /><br />3. About Paul's conversion. It seems to me that a good way to make yourself known in the early church is to claim to have seen Jesus. I know it is a doctrine of mainstream NT studies that Paul was comepletely sincere and passionate about his belief in the risen Christ, and that his vision of Jesus accounts for this. I've no doubt that he was sincere about his belief. But did that stem from a vision? Maybe the belief came first. I don't know.<br /><br />Again, these are all very rough and hastily written ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com