That's interesting. I wonder if it was a failure to register, or a feeling that he might change his mind. Depending on their state of mind, they might have planned this big thing, still believing deep down that it was just big talk and really nothing would happen.

Oh well, I shouldn't speculate. I don't know much about that case.


Forget criminals, I saw that in some of your old discussions with Russianbear, so it's certainly possible.

If something similar was the case in the core of the 1st century Christian church, I think I'd still consider that they "believed what they were saying" (even though it's not quite as simple as that, I guess).


That does sound like a racket offhand. But it sounds like he benefitted from the racket. I'd be more curious to see him stick to it at great cost.

Why not include those mentioned in the bible like Stephen? What about Peter? His death is not recounted in the bible but surely it wasn't centuries later.

Ed said:

we can only infer that the death is witness to the martyr's faith. But is that faith real or imagined? We cannot know from the outside. That they believed it to be true proves nothing about it actually being true.

I say:

It proves nothing by itself but it contributes to the case for Jesus' resurrection. I think it is reasonable to ask why these early Christians believed that such an extremely unusual event (resurrection) had happened.


Ed said:

...when we compare the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection we see a spate of contradictions. To give one example, CF and I disputed the reading of John 20:10-20, which tells us that Mary did not enter the tomb. If you read Matthew 28:1-8, Mary and "the other Mary" (who is never identified anywhere else in the Bible) go to the tomb together and enter the tomb.

Here are two contradictions: either Mary Magdalene went alone to the tomb or she went in the company of the other Mary; either she (or they) entered the tomb or she (or they) did not. Which is it?

I say:

Firstly, I think that contradictions in the Bible would not by themselves invalidate everything recorded in the Bible. Some bits could be valid even though other bits were not accurate. However, I don't think there are contradictions in the verses you cited. In my translation (the New Living) things don't read how you say:

- John 20:10-20 doesn't say that Mary didn't go into the tomb and it doesn't say she was alone. Maybe Mary went into the tomb, went back out and then when she 'was standing outside the tomb crying, and as she wept, she stooped and looked in.' (Verse 11)

- Matthew 28 doesn't say the women entered the tomb. The New Living Translation says, 'Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to see the tomb' and then the angel is recorded as saying, 'Come, see where his body was lying'. Maybe the women just poked their heads through the entrance without going in fully.

Also, doesn't the fact that the accounts are not identical give them added credence? If I were fabricating 'evidence' of a fictional event then I think I would take the time to remove differences like the ones you mentioned, Ed.


Ed said:

Yes, I got a chance to read the factual/mythological account. The "accretion of Herodotus" argument is just plain bunk. Much of what Herodotus wrote we have no way of verifying because he is our only source. Furthermore, Lane ignores the fact that the earliest know written copies of the New Testament date from about the tenth century A.D.--plenty of time for fabulous material to get inserted.

I say:

Tenth century A.D.? This is not what I have read elsewhere. Wikipedia (sorry!) says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

The second link has a list of dozens of New Testament papyri which date from before the tenth century and it lists where each manuscript is stored. Where did you get 10th century from?

Ed, I am just curious here.

Is ANYTHING that *you* ever say or believe really some sort of a "fallacy"?

I mean, Ed, it seems to me that you seem to like to lay this "fallacy" fetish; (i.e, obsessive devotion), of yours to label just about everything that is discussed in support of the evidence concerning Christianity here in this thread as some sort of a "fallacy" of one sort or another.


Chess Fan

I don't follow. Its unlikely he would care what happened to his money if he was planning dying shortly. Maybe he was following through with this because he didn't want any suspicions raised before hand.

Disciples all agreed to die for a lie because they were all just delusional? Well its an explanation. A likely one? They didn't seem willing to die before he was resurrected. They abandoned Jesus at the cross. What suddenly casued them to be delusional?

The writings of the early christians don't seem delusional. The clarity of thought and fact that the writings can still speak directly to people 2000 years later must be some evidence that the early christians had sense.

It's a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. If they believed what they were saying, then they might be right, they might be wrong. We can investigate further. But if they didn't even believe it themselves, why bother? We might as well call it quits right there.

Add paul and the Christians killed by Nero. Not centuries later.

This is for russianbear. There are two stories here - true story and false story. It is upto you. You can choose one as true and the other false.

Matt 27
[54] Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
[55] And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
[56] Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
[57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
[59] And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
[61] And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt.28
[1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
[2] And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
[3] His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
[4] And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
[5] And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
[6] He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
[7] And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
[8] And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
[9] And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
[10] Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
[11] Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
[12] And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
[13] Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
[14] And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
[15] So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
[17] And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I do agree we need to investigate beliefs further. But the fact that someone (or group) believes something should at times be sufficient to convince us its true. I think the article does just that. It investigates the circumstances and argues the conclusion that in this case their belief is compelling evidence of a resurection.

Just because they "can" be interpretted different doesn't mean they should. Moreover I think he acknowledges this with the Sadduces.

Who cares when it was canonized? It was still part of their beliefs and teachings before it was canonized.


He clearly explains that Sadduces didn't believe and Pharisees did. I don't see what your issue is. Do you not agree with that?

yoru saying that there is grounds to believe the idea came from Zoroastrianism proves what? I don't follow. How is that inconsistant with anything he said?