Group hysteria is usually a temporary condition that builds, hits a peak, and then dissipates as people come back to their senses.
But what you have in the case of the very early church are original followers and students of this odd Jewish Rabbi proclaiming His resurrection, not just for a day or a week or a month or a year, but for the rest of their lives. And, in most cases, these people willingly suffered death rather than deny what they said they had seen with their own eyes.
If the first eye witnesses didn’t thoroughly believe that Jesus had risen from the dead — and agree among themselves about what they believed they had seen and experienced — then the whole sham or delusion or deception would have fallen apart pretty quick, in my opinion.
In the Gospel of Matthew, after the resurrection, Matthew writes, “Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:16-17, NIV) The Message writes it as, “Meanwhile, the eleven disciples were on their way to Galilee, headed for the mountain Jesus had set for their reunion. The moment they saw him they worshiped him. Some, though, held back, not sure about worship, about risking themselves totally.”
Do you think Peterson got the meaning of the passage correct? I find it odd that some of those eleven people doubted after all that had happened up to that point. What were they doubting? Were they doubting it was Jesus? Were they doubting his resurrection? Were they doubting he was the Messiah they were waiting for? What did they doubt? Or, perhaps “some” was referring to different people and not the 11 disciples. If I knew the original language, I may know better whether that is a possibility or not. Those of you who do know the Greek language can perhaps enlighten me.
So, Headless Unicorn, why believe in one absurdity (a man rising from the dead–supernaturally, without any scientific explanation being allowed), and not all the others you listed? You’re obviously an intelligent man–are you just looking for a group to belong to? The Evangelicals will never accept you–you should be an atheist.
Or, the gospel stories claim that various people saw the resurrected Christ, except they didn’t always recognize him, and at one point confused an angel with the gardner. Isn’t there just a wee bit of room here for human hysteria? If it was Elvis they was talking about, you wouldn’t believe it for a minute.
…the resurrection of Jesus. For critics of the Christian faith, this is the sticking point. For followers of Jesus, it is the central event that forms our identity.
Not YoungEarth Creationism.
Not Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist.
Not Speaking in Tongues.
Not Taking Back America.
“Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.”
Amen, amen.
I especially love that quote that you posted from his book (which I considering purchasing, massive tome that it is). It may be presumptuous of me to say, but what he said there may take the cake and be the best part of the book.
“Anyone can die for their belief. You see that from the 9-11 hijackers to Joseph Smith. But the resurrection is what makes Christianity different.” What is stated is true, however “dying for a belief” and “dying for a lie” are two totally different things. Jihadists and followers of Joseph Smith “believe” that things they’ve been told are true. The disciples and other eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus knew whether it was true or not. As mentioned, the resurrection is the central tenant of our faith. The early christians suffered persecution and death for their convictions that the resurrection really happened. It goes against human nature to die for something that you know with certainty is a lie.
“Anyone can die for their belief. You see that from the 9-11 hijackers to Joseph Smith. But the resurrection is what makes Christianity different.”
Eagle, that was really profound.
“The ones who said they saw something, weren’t too sure of what it was they saw.”
Don’t think so. One of the earliest NT witnesses to the resurrection, 1Cor 15, makes it very clear who they saw. And the resurrection narratives themselves, though expressing a deep sense of mystery and amazement at what was happening, don’t express any ambiguity about who it was they were interacting with.
Technically, of course, no one saw the resurrection event itself. They saw the One who had been raised.
What’s all this talk of “eye-witnesses”? The ones who said they saw something, weren’t too sure of what it was they saw. By the time the gospels got written, a generation or so later, these stories must have been circulating for quite some time as oral literature, or what we would call urban legends. And even if there was such a witness, sober folk wouldn’t believe him, given the befuddled nature of his report.
No, there’s nothing in the gospels that would make a historian believe it, if he were not already inclined to belief. The resurrection is, as Tertullian wrote, an absurdity (a supernatural event, a miracle) for which no rational explanation would be entertained. What point is there, then, in trying to argue for it? The fact that lots of people believe it is no special evidence in its favor–witness all the other religions of the world.
Christianity without the resurrections is nothing…. It’s probably the most important part of the faith. Anyone can die for their belief. You see that from the 9-11 hijackers to Joseph Smith. But the resurrection is what makes Christianity different. I don’t know why it is…but I am not as skeptical about the resurrection. I’ve torn apart other aspects of Christianity, but the resurrection doesn’t bother me like the problem of evil, God’s exclusive salvation, and God’s practice of genocide. (Just to name a few…)
Yet the resurrection doesn’t bother me as much. I don’t know why…
I would be curious to know the rest of the book. I hope John Piper was left out of the book as well as those Christian sex toys that Jeff and others spoke about in the ramblings a few weeks back! 😯
As once explained to me by a awesome Catholic chaplain (who tended our tiny military flock in the boondocks of about 35-if NO ONE was sick or on duty) the early Chruch didn’t care much about Christ’s childhood and birth, because it was small peanuts next to a “dead guy” coming back and still saying He was God. AND, of course, they expected Him back within the generation!!!
Only as the first Believers started to die off did it seem important to get down all the information that would otherwise die with the Apostles and Mary. Of these, ONLY Mary could have shared about His Conception and childhood.
The resurrection becomes the interesect between the old reality and the new hope. It will never be explainable because it is at this interesection that the New Heaven, meets the old created order. Jesus, the second Adam, the firstfruits of this new Kingdom, doesn’t behave according to the rules of the old order. The resurrection thus becomes that point over which historians must stumble, or else throw away their Ph.D’s.
When much younger I’d sometimes attempt to logically explain this to someone else. The best we can do is testify to the hope that is within us.
I’d be more concerned with the accounts of the ressurection if they all fell into lockstep, and the event was explained one, two, three, etc. by those who were witnesses. As it is we have an unexplainable mystery. To those of us who have not seen He will someday appear again. And all creation will bow before Him.
Yes, in the resurrection, God tells us that our deaths are not the end of us, no matter how it looks at the time. And it’s not like our life just gets “recycled” the way those who believe in reincarnation would have us believe. We, personally, will exist for eternity. The details of all that are really beyond us to understand. If they WERE understandable, then the reality of it would be less amazing than it is. The older I get, the more I realize my lack of understanding and the more comfortable I get with that knowledge of my lack of understanding! As a younger person, I wanted answers and I wanted them now. I didn’t know how I could get on with my life without having answers first.
“…When the accusers [of Paul] stood up, they began bringing charges against him not of such crimes as I was expecting, but they simply had some points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive. Being at a loss how to investigate such matters…”
Festus, to King Agrippa, Acts 25:18-20
I think you and MacCulloch are really in agreement here. To me, he didn’t come across as trying to dismiss or explain away the Resurrection – it looked like he was pointing out the ‘stuckness’ at this juncture rather than finding himself necessarily stuck. (I mean, he may find himself a little stuck, but his personal beliefs weren’t so much what he was trying to convey)
One of the things I suspect he was broadly trying to get across here is that the Resurrection is not merely the primary fact of Christianity as a belief system, but also the primary fact of Christian literature when considered historically. The earliest Christians became so because of a single event – the Resurrection – around which all else fell into place. So too it is with the writings that went on to become the New Testament. The Resurrection is the mystery, the central point, the thing so inherent that it becomes almost impossible to analyse. Everything else can be analysed by the historian and looked at in the light of the early Christians and their world-view. But the Resurrection is so much more problematic. We cannot look at it in the light and world-view of early Christians because it *was* the light and the world-view of those early Christians.
The Internet Monk Archives
Group hysteria is usually a temporary condition that builds, hits a peak, and then dissipates as people come back to their senses.
But what you have in the case of the very early church are original followers and students of this odd Jewish Rabbi proclaiming His resurrection, not just for a day or a week or a month or a year, but for the rest of their lives. And, in most cases, these people willingly suffered death rather than deny what they said they had seen with their own eyes.
If the first eye witnesses didn’t thoroughly believe that Jesus had risen from the dead — and agree among themselves about what they believed they had seen and experienced — then the whole sham or delusion or deception would have fallen apart pretty quick, in my opinion.
LikeLike
In the Gospel of Matthew, after the resurrection, Matthew writes, “Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:16-17, NIV) The Message writes it as, “Meanwhile, the eleven disciples were on their way to Galilee, headed for the mountain Jesus had set for their reunion. The moment they saw him they worshiped him. Some, though, held back, not sure about worship, about risking themselves totally.”
Do you think Peterson got the meaning of the passage correct? I find it odd that some of those eleven people doubted after all that had happened up to that point. What were they doubting? Were they doubting it was Jesus? Were they doubting his resurrection? Were they doubting he was the Messiah they were waiting for? What did they doubt? Or, perhaps “some” was referring to different people and not the 11 disciples. If I knew the original language, I may know better whether that is a possibility or not. Those of you who do know the Greek language can perhaps enlighten me.
LikeLike
Willie, you showed your hand of being totally unfamilar with this site or the beliefs of anyone here!!!
🙂
You’ll ger bored here soon enough…its all grownup talk.
LikeLike
So, Headless Unicorn, why believe in one absurdity (a man rising from the dead–supernaturally, without any scientific explanation being allowed), and not all the others you listed? You’re obviously an intelligent man–are you just looking for a group to belong to? The Evangelicals will never accept you–you should be an atheist.
LikeLike
Or, the gospel stories claim that various people saw the resurrected Christ, except they didn’t always recognize him, and at one point confused an angel with the gardner. Isn’t there just a wee bit of room here for human hysteria? If it was Elvis they was talking about, you wouldn’t believe it for a minute.
LikeLike
Not YoungEarth Creationism.
Not Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist.
Not Speaking in Tongues.
Not Taking Back America.
LikeLike
“Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.”
Amen, amen.
I especially love that quote that you posted from his book (which I considering purchasing, massive tome that it is). It may be presumptuous of me to say, but what he said there may take the cake and be the best part of the book.
LikeLike
“Anyone can die for their belief. You see that from the 9-11 hijackers to Joseph Smith. But the resurrection is what makes Christianity different.” What is stated is true, however “dying for a belief” and “dying for a lie” are two totally different things. Jihadists and followers of Joseph Smith “believe” that things they’ve been told are true. The disciples and other eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus knew whether it was true or not. As mentioned, the resurrection is the central tenant of our faith. The early christians suffered persecution and death for their convictions that the resurrection really happened. It goes against human nature to die for something that you know with certainty is a lie.
LikeLike
“Anyone can die for their belief. You see that from the 9-11 hijackers to Joseph Smith. But the resurrection is what makes Christianity different.”
Eagle, that was really profound.
LikeLike
“The ones who said they saw something, weren’t too sure of what it was they saw.”
Don’t think so. One of the earliest NT witnesses to the resurrection, 1Cor 15, makes it very clear who they saw. And the resurrection narratives themselves, though expressing a deep sense of mystery and amazement at what was happening, don’t express any ambiguity about who it was they were interacting with.
Technically, of course, no one saw the resurrection event itself. They saw the One who had been raised.
LikeLike
What’s all this talk of “eye-witnesses”? The ones who said they saw something, weren’t too sure of what it was they saw. By the time the gospels got written, a generation or so later, these stories must have been circulating for quite some time as oral literature, or what we would call urban legends. And even if there was such a witness, sober folk wouldn’t believe him, given the befuddled nature of his report.
No, there’s nothing in the gospels that would make a historian believe it, if he were not already inclined to belief. The resurrection is, as Tertullian wrote, an absurdity (a supernatural event, a miracle) for which no rational explanation would be entertained. What point is there, then, in trying to argue for it? The fact that lots of people believe it is no special evidence in its favor–witness all the other religions of the world.
LikeLike
Incidentally, Diarmaid MacCulloch was knighted only last month for ‘services to scholarship’. This book was probably a major component in that.
LikeLike
This is Good News. 🙂
LikeLike
Christianity without the resurrections is nothing…. It’s probably the most important part of the faith. Anyone can die for their belief. You see that from the 9-11 hijackers to Joseph Smith. But the resurrection is what makes Christianity different. I don’t know why it is…but I am not as skeptical about the resurrection. I’ve torn apart other aspects of Christianity, but the resurrection doesn’t bother me like the problem of evil, God’s exclusive salvation, and God’s practice of genocide. (Just to name a few…)
Yet the resurrection doesn’t bother me as much. I don’t know why…
I would be curious to know the rest of the book. I hope John Piper was left out of the book as well as those Christian sex toys that Jeff and others spoke about in the ramblings a few weeks back! 😯
LikeLike
Well, who CAN explain the Resurrection???
As once explained to me by a awesome Catholic chaplain (who tended our tiny military flock in the boondocks of about 35-if NO ONE was sick or on duty) the early Chruch didn’t care much about Christ’s childhood and birth, because it was small peanuts next to a “dead guy” coming back and still saying He was God. AND, of course, they expected Him back within the generation!!!
Only as the first Believers started to die off did it seem important to get down all the information that would otherwise die with the Apostles and Mary. Of these, ONLY Mary could have shared about His Conception and childhood.
LikeLike
The resurrection becomes the interesect between the old reality and the new hope. It will never be explainable because it is at this interesection that the New Heaven, meets the old created order. Jesus, the second Adam, the firstfruits of this new Kingdom, doesn’t behave according to the rules of the old order. The resurrection thus becomes that point over which historians must stumble, or else throw away their Ph.D’s.
When much younger I’d sometimes attempt to logically explain this to someone else. The best we can do is testify to the hope that is within us.
I’d be more concerned with the accounts of the ressurection if they all fell into lockstep, and the event was explained one, two, three, etc. by those who were witnesses. As it is we have an unexplainable mystery. To those of us who have not seen He will someday appear again. And all creation will bow before Him.
LikeLike
Yes, in the resurrection, God tells us that our deaths are not the end of us, no matter how it looks at the time. And it’s not like our life just gets “recycled” the way those who believe in reincarnation would have us believe. We, personally, will exist for eternity. The details of all that are really beyond us to understand. If they WERE understandable, then the reality of it would be less amazing than it is. The older I get, the more I realize my lack of understanding and the more comfortable I get with that knowledge of my lack of understanding! As a younger person, I wanted answers and I wanted them now. I didn’t know how I could get on with my life without having answers first.
LikeLike
well said
LikeLike
“…When the accusers [of Paul] stood up, they began bringing charges against him not of such crimes as I was expecting, but they simply had some points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive. Being at a loss how to investigate such matters…”
Festus, to King Agrippa, Acts 25:18-20
LikeLike
I think you and MacCulloch are really in agreement here. To me, he didn’t come across as trying to dismiss or explain away the Resurrection – it looked like he was pointing out the ‘stuckness’ at this juncture rather than finding himself necessarily stuck. (I mean, he may find himself a little stuck, but his personal beliefs weren’t so much what he was trying to convey)
One of the things I suspect he was broadly trying to get across here is that the Resurrection is not merely the primary fact of Christianity as a belief system, but also the primary fact of Christian literature when considered historically. The earliest Christians became so because of a single event – the Resurrection – around which all else fell into place. So too it is with the writings that went on to become the New Testament. The Resurrection is the mystery, the central point, the thing so inherent that it becomes almost impossible to analyse. Everything else can be analysed by the historian and looked at in the light of the early Christians and their world-view. But the Resurrection is so much more problematic. We cannot look at it in the light and world-view of early Christians because it *was* the light and the world-view of those early Christians.
LikeLike