Okay, but why are the disciples put in such a bad light in the very works they are using to promote the religion they founded then?
Paul in the 15th Chapter of 1 Corinthians states that over 500 people saw him at one time. The letter predates the Gospels. I realize you aren’t swayed by scripture, but it’s still more than a handful of witnesses.
Everyone loves the underdog? Martyrs rule? The contrast of fallible, sinful mortals makes for nice contrast with the Lamb? Or because cautionary tales are a staple of the Bible, just ask Lot’s wife.
Huh? You lost me there.
I don’t believe miracles actually happen, and view them as pure mythology.
The whole point of my previous most is that the two things (“miracles” on the one hand, and “mystic experiences” on the other) are totally different.
To sum, in as simple a form as I can:
-
Resurrection of the dead = miracle = folklore, mythology, did not literally happen, no convincing evidence can be advanced because it is not literally true.
-
Mystic experience = actual thing that literally happens to (some) people, several people in this thread claim it happened to them, there is at least some actual scientific evidence that such experiences literally modify people’s brain functions.
Hundreds of people claim they saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, too. Do you believe them?
I believe you are splitting hairs, and that those guarding the tomb hoping for proof of the divine would probably refer to their “vision” as a mystic experience, as they didn’t actually see a dead body return to life.
Not in 1st Century Israel. Underdogs and martyrs were more likely to be viewed as people outside of God’s favor. Lot’s wife isn’t looked to as one of the founders of a faith. I repeat, this kind of portrayal of individuals in a work of this type is so unusual as to be unique for the time and place they were written.
The TV camera and studio audience were on a revolving platform. The view was blocked. It was night. They revolved. David Copperfield doesn’t claim to perform anything but stage illusion.
They weren’t put in that bad a light, and different authors will tell stories in different ways. Besides, they weren’t putting themselves in a bad light, because Jesus’ disciples weren’t the ones that wrote the gospels in the first place. Why wouldn’t the actual authors look back at what happened and think that they would have done it better? You are just looking for some way to make these particular stories unique(and thus perhaps true), first with the supposedly unique “resurrection” angle, and now this “How could they be lying if they badmouthed themselves” fallacy. This smacks of the old “With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good!” campaign.
I here and now make the claim that 10,000 people saw me climb the outside of the Empire State Building.
How many witnesses saw me climb the outside of the Empire State Building?
Sure he did, while the tickets were on sale. So long as he stood to gain fame and a financial benefit for the illusion, he swore the building would disappear.
Splitting hairs? I don’t agree.
The difference between a miracle and something that is not a miracle is pretty fundamental, no?
Peter is by turns an overenthusiastic zealot and a frightened coward. James and John get nicknamed “Sons of Thunder” indicating they are angry, empty loudmouths.
Why wouldn’t the authors look back and think they’d have done it better? Because there’s no advantage to them doing so. If the disciples had been presented as bastions of virtue, it would have been easier for them to be held up as models for the faith.
The stories are unique. The other Messiahs didn’t inspire disciples and writings decades after their deaths.
The followers and the popularity fed into each other, and if a religion dies out of course it has no followers to write about it. It’s like saying Betamax was a bad idea because hardly anybody writes about it.
I’m at work so can’t comment as much as I would like but I just want to point out, that your citation here is just one guy, who wasn’t a witness, just saying there were 500 witnesses. You don’t have the accounts of 500 witnesses, just hearsay, thereof.
You know like if I were to tell you I can fly if I flap my arms hard enough, you should believe me because 500 people saw me. Convincing?
See post #230.
Sure, in that the difference is the observer. What a religious person calls “miracle” I’d call coincidence or natural phenomenon. One is a “mystical experience” the other is an observation.
This was specifically in response to Troppus’s assertion that the number of people who claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ was “a handful.” Troppus is also just one guy, who wasn’t a witness.
I didn’t see you make this post, either, but I believe it exists as I can see the evidence. Also your post on a message board isn’t an extraordinary event that falls outside the limits of medicine and biology. If, however, you told me that you’d been tortured to death just last week but were resurrected in order to demonstrate your divinity, I’d be skeptical. You’d likewise be skeptical if I made a similar claim, would you not?
No. I’m using the term “mystical experience” throughout this thread as having a very particular and specific meaning - not as a catch-all for the miraculous, etc.
I’d repeat what I said upthread about what they typically consist of, but I lack the energy. Suffice it to say it is a particular mental episode or experience, not unlike a temporary fit or seizure.