rakovsky

First, the disciples were moral people who believed in and prayed to God, as their teachings from Jesus their leader would show. So they wouldn't make things up. Second, they were hiding after the Crucifixion and scared of the Jews, so they needed something to rekindle their faith and bravery. Third, as Luke 24 and John 20:9 say, the disciples did not foreknow the scripture about the resurrection, so they weren't expecting it, nor would they have been trying to steal the body to prove the resurrection, since they didn't know it was supposed to happen. Fourth, with the sayings of Jesus we know that they were taught to be wise, not delusional. And even Thomas had doubts. So they were realistic people and only the real resurrection that they saw convinced them powerfully. Fifth, they were so strong in their faith after the crucifixion that they could risk persecution, lashing, and jail. So they would not make things up either. The difficulty is that each of these reasons has counterarguments. If their psychological state was like the modern Charismatics who claim group visions and speak in disordery 'tongues', wouldn't it be naive to believe them? Remember that only about a dozen apostles and women are said to have seen Jesus up close physically. As for the 500 Paul mentioned, for all we know this could have been like the modern Marian apparitions where some in the crowd don't see Mary in the sky. As for the Five arguments listed above: 1. Charismatics and Mormons have moral teachings and I think pray. But I think the Mormons' leaders and some Charismatic leaders do fabricate things or get delusional, even though they teach morality. 2. It SAYS that they were hiding. But in fact John the apostle was admittedly there with Jesus at the trial and crucifixion, if not the burial. The women were at the crucifixion and burial. So were Nicodemus and Joseph. Peter had been brave enough to cut the guards' ear and Peter and John were brave enough to go out in public to Jesus' grave Sunday morning where there might still have been guards to catch them on the way. Golgotha was outside the city gates so they at least had to go by some guards. So maybe they were not really so scared after all. And how do we know they really were scared and in hiding? Because we have to rely on the evangelists' own claims that they were. So this is circular reasoning: We know that they were scared because we can rely on their testimony, and we can rely on their testimony about themselves because they had to have been scared. 3. Realistically speaking it sounds to me like it would be a mistake to think that the disciples didn't yet know that there was an expectation by Jesus or scripture that the messiah would rise again, as the apologetic argument would say. Jesus himself many times predicted he would get killed and resurrect, and even talked about Jonah's prophecy. The pharisees understood Jesus' words about the rising again, supposedly, to post a guard, so it's hard to think that the apostles didn't understand this. 4. Charismatics and Mormons and the 2nd century gnostic Christians like in the gospel of Thomas had wise sayings but I think the Mormons and gnostics made things up. The disciples did have doubts, but maybe not all those doubts really were answered. The 4th appearance of Jesus was in Matthew 28 on the Mount, and in Greek it literally says "they worshped him and they doubted". Maybe this was like the Marian apparitions where some see Mary and others don't. Maybe some apostles did not see Jesus there and just some apostles did, and so at least "some doubted" (as the KJV says). 5. Can the persecution be exaggerated? How do we know almost all the apostles got killed, unless we rely on extra-Biblical Church Tradition? And when were those Traditions written and by whome? 100 years after the apostles' supposed deaths and written by people who wanted to spread martyrdom stories? Is that reliable? Gamaliel the Pharisee leader even made a open decision that the pharisees in Jerusalem must not persecute the Christians anymore, according to Acts. Peter was killed about 30 years after Jesus was, and even then it was on the surprise announcement by Nero blaming Christians for ROme's fire. It was not as if as soon as Christians -the apostles -were found in Rome the Romans killed them. James was protected by the Romans for 30 years until the Sanhedrin killed him when the Roman governor was away. Paul made four major journeys around the empire. Although it's true he was occasionally arrested, he still got around quite far. So it seems like the risk of persecution could easily have been exaggerated, even if Stephen (not one of the 11 disciples who saw Jesus in the gospels) was killed in Antioch, and even if later on under Domitian (90 AD) there could have been real persecution.

I am Hal from America. I saw the discussion on evidence of the Resurrection here: http://www.jesuswalk.com/resurrection/3_resurrection-proofs.htm The resurrection is fascinating for me. I believe in God and love Jesus and can feel my heart connect to Him, which is a major component of what is called faith. My problem is that at the mental level if I try to think objectively about it, I am inclined to think that the Resurrection did not physically occur. Without time travel or remote viewing of course I think it can't be proved 100% either way, but at least the narrative stretches realistic credibility. The reason is that it seems to me that the early Christians could have been like the Charismatics today, and I don't believe in most of their "gifts" and group visions. In one case, a charismatic church filmed Jesus appearing in their worship and healing someone, and the church went on tour with the tape. But when a Christian investigator asked for the tape to research it, the pastor said he lost the tape. I think the Charismatics often have a mix of fabrication and delusion. But I don't know how you can easily disprove he Charismatics other than to say that they stretch credibility. The same thing is said by skeptics about the Resurrection. I will discuss the issues here: Q1. Differences between Resurrection Accounts http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/571-q1-differences-between-resurrection-accounts/page-3#entry102222(My entry) Q2. The Theft Theory http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/577-q2-the-theft-theory/page-3#entry102223 (My entry) Q3. The Disciples' Psychological State http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/578-q3-the-disciples-psychological-state/page-3#entry102227(My entry) Q4. Compelling Proofs http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/579-q4-compelling-proofs/page-3#entry102224(My entry)

In fact, all of these claims listed above rest on the disciples' psychology and reliability, except for the last one (spread of Christianity.). And merely because a religion spreads far doesn't make it right. Mormonism has spread quite quickly, but it's a made up religion. I find the disciples' psychology and reliability therefore to be the most compelling. Whether the tomb was empty is less compelling, because if the apostles AREN'T reliable, then for all we know, the apostles could have stolen the body on Friday or Sunday, before or after the guards were posted. they could have made up all the other details. To convince someone, I would explain that the apostles gave up a lot to be Christian leaders and that the Old Testament predicted it. But in truth these are not so convincing, because sometimes I think sects that are persecuted do make up stories, and anyway the apostles lasted a long time before they were killed, and it isn't even clear how many of them were killed unless you rely on Sacred Church Tradition that was written down even later. Besides, just because the Old Testament writers and prophets said something would happen centuries previous to them or after their times does not necessarily mean to me that it would occur. I don't think there was an actual global flood that Noah survived with the world's animal pairs in one boat. It doesn't sound realistic if you think of the logistics.

The disciples' material motive to take the body would have been so that they could lead a religious sect and gain followers and tithes. This is the same motive that Charismatic preachers and televangelists have when they claim mistakenly that they cause frequent miracles, ask for donations, or even on rare occasion make outrageous claims like they themselves are actually Jesus reincarnated. If the body was taken, then the sect could continue even without the Messianic leader himself. James and the other disciples could take over as leaders of the Church. In Acts 5, Peter rebuked two people (A husband named Ananias and his wife), because they did not reveal their financial transactions to Peter. It sounds as if the Christian leadership expected followers with cash to make serious financial contributions to the Church, ie. in practice the leadership. And when Ananias and his wife didn't, it is said that they died because supposedly God killed them. That sounds like a pretty strong directive to hand money over to the disciples. Then in one of his epistles, Paul mentions that he took up a donation for the Jerusalem Church. So the motive would be financial and the desire to lead a sect like Charismatic leaders do today, some of whom are not ethical. The counterargument by apologetics is that persecution would be too much to risk stealing Jesus' body. But in reality persecution has not stopped some people from doing unethical things. A charismatic preacher I suppose could go to a very dangerous third world country to gain followers, even if he is making up many of his charismatic claims. The Romans' motive would be if they wanted to support the Christian movement as a law abiding counterbalance to the other Messianic movements of the day. The Romans had a real danger of Jewish rebellion and weren't politically poised enough to avoid Jesus' crucifixion because the Sanhedrin pressured Pilate into it. But they still could make his death look like the body rose again in order to promote the Christian movement as an alternative to the other Messianic rebels. Personally I don't believe this Conspiracy Theory about the Romans though. The Jews' motive would be to steal the body in case there were riches with the body that could be resold on a black market. Grave robbery existed at the time and the tomb guards weren't posted for a day (until Saturday). Joseph's motive would be to foster the Christian movement if he was secretly close to it and was a secret sponsor and expected kickbacks from the disciples. But I don't think any of these alternatives are very likely, because Joseph was not considered a Christian leader, and if the Romans wanted to help the Christians in the first place, they wouldn't have killed Jesus. I think the most realistic possibility is that the disciples took it secretly, such as when the guards were not posted. For that matter, they could have even made up the story about the guards and about the pharisees knowing of the third day resurrection prediction.

Dr. Ralph Discusses the Issue of the Differences in more detail here: http://www.jesuswalk.com/resurrection/2_resurrection-gospels.htm Here is what I find to be the most striking details: In Mark 16:8, after hearing the young man's/angel's instructions to tell the apostles about Jesus going to Galilee, "they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." And here Mark's original version of his gospel ends. This leads the reader to the impression that they kept quiet at least for a long period of time. The verses from 9 onwards, added to a later version of Mark, mention two travelers knowing about the women's vision of angels, but not about them knowing of Jesus' appearance there or about disciples at the tomb. However, in the three other gospels, the women immediately went to tell the apostles about the angel, and the disciples came back and looked at the tomb. Also in the other three gospels, the women saw Jesus. So why does Mark tend to rule out the disciples' visit to the tomb? Apologetic Counterargument: The women's silence after meeting the angel in Mark 16:8 could have just been temporary, meaning that they did not tell anyone there around the tomb. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus or the angel at the tomb has the myrrhbearers tell the apostles to meet Him in Galilee, where Matthew says they do meet the resurrected Jesus. Luke changes the reference to Galilee to one where Jesus simply told them in Galilee about the resurrection. It looks like Luke is intentionally editing out the Galilean meeting. Instead, Luke has Jesus show up on Day 1 of the Resurrection to the apostles in Jerusalem, at which point he tells them to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost. This would bar them from meeting Jesus on the mountain in Galilee as Matthew described and from meeting Jesus at the sea like John 21 described. Apologetic Counterargument: Luke 24 might not have been clear in its chronology: It says Jesus appeared on Day 1 and spoke to them. But the part about staying in Jerusalem could have referred to instructions He gave at a later appearance to the apostles, since the speech in verses 46-49 begins with the words "And he said", implying that this all might not have been one long monologue on the same day. Alternately, Jesus could have been giving general instructions to stay in Jerusalem that did not bar brief side trips to Galilee. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:5 that after Jesus' resurrection, He showed Himself to "the twelve". Luke says that on Day 1 of the resurrection, Jesus appeared to "the eleven". Did Paul not know about Judas' betrayal? Based on John 20, Thomas wouldn't have been there either, so Jesus would have only showed Himself to 10 people that time. If Luke and Paul were just talking in generalities about "the twelve" or "the eleven" collectively with an estimation, perhaps there were even fewer disciples present at that first appearance? Counterargument: Matthias had become one of the twelve by the time Paul was writing, even if he wasn't selected as one at the moment of the appearance. So perhaps Matthias was at that initial group appearance and Paul listed him among "the twelve". In Luke 24, Jesus appears on Day 1, has some monologues, takes the disciples as far as to Bethany (which looks on the map like it is probably beyond the Mount of Olives), and ascends. In Acts 1, Jesus appears to the apostles over the course of 40 days, at the end of which he ascends from the Mount of Olives. Counterargument: As stated before: Luke 24 might not have been clear in its chronology: It says Jesus appeared on Day 1 and spoke to them. But the part about ascending could have referred to a later appearance to the apostles, even though the chronology is not distinguished. Maybe Bethany counts as on the Mount of Olives, or else it isn't clear that Jesus led them onto that spot, as opposed to just going on the road. Why did Jesus order Mary Magdalene not to grasp on Him in John, yet He let the disciples touch Him in Luke and John and the two Marys held His feet in Matthew? Was Jesus really an ephemeral apparition that could not really be grasped? Counterargument: First, the two Marys did hold onto his feet, but them He told Mary not to grasp Him. With the would "grasp", He meant that she shouldn't hold onto Him, but that instead she should go tell the disciples, or else that He didn't want to be held back by Mary because He had to go on with his goals. Even though I can think of apologetics' counterarguments, these still seem to me to be major problems. It does sound to me like Mark ended his gospel leaving the impression that the women didn't notify the apostles, and that it was only later that the apostles happened to meet Jesus in Galilee (if at all), without Peter and John rushing to the tomb like the other gospels say. I am aware that this is not a full-proof argument, it just seems to be a real problem for me, as do the other ones I listed.

I am Hal from America. I saw the discussion on evidence of the Resurrection here: http://www.jesuswalk.com/resurrection/3_resurrection-proofs.htm The resurrection is fascinating for me. I believe in God and love Jesus and can feel my heart connect to Him, which is a major component of what is called faith. My problem is that at the mental level if I try to think objectively about it, I am inclined to think that the Resurrection did not physically occur. Without time travel or remote viewing of course I think it can't be proved 100% either way, but at least the narrative stretches realistic credibility. The reason is that it seems to me that the early Christians could have been like the Charismatics today, and I don't believe in most of their "gifts" and group visions. In one case, a charismatic church filmed Jesus appearing in their worship and healing someone, and the church went on tour with the tape. But when a Christian investigator asked for the tape to research it, the pastor said he lost the tape. I think the Charismatics often have a mix of fabrication and delusion. But I don't know how you can easily disprove he Charismatics other than to say that they stretch credibility. The same thing is said by skeptics about the Resurrection. I will discuss the issues here: Q1. Differences between Resurrection Accounts http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/571-q1-differences-between-resurrection-accounts/page-3#entry102222(My entry) Q2. The Theft Theory http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/577-q2-the-theft-theory/page-3#entry102223 (My entry) Q3. The Disciples' Psychological State http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/578-q3-the-disciples-psychological-state/page-3#entry102227(My entry) Q4. Compelling Proofs http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/topic/579-q4-compelling-proofs/page-3#entry102224(My entry)