In today’s post I wish to conclude my analysis on what the Bible actually says about hell, or more particularly, what those passages we often assume are about hell really are about. Yesterday I looked at the Greek understanding of “Hades,” the ancient Near Eastern concept of “Sheol,” and the New Testament term “Gehenna.” Today I will look at the “Lake of Fire” in Revelation and recurring phrase throughout the gospels, “the place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The Lake of Fire: Revelation 20
In Revelation 20 we have the famous passage regarding the lake of fire. It plot unfolds in the following manner:
- In Revelation 19, the beast and the false prophet (in 95 AD seen as Domitian and the Imperial Cult) are thrown into the lake of fire.
- In Revelation 20:1-3, the dragon, the ancient serpent, Satan, is thrown into the bottomless pit.
- In Revelation 20:4-6, those martyred for Christ (see the fifth seal in chapter 6:9-11; chapter 7, particularly 7:14; chapter 13:10, 15; chapter 14:1-5; chapter 17:6; chapter 18:24) come to life and reign with Christ for 1,000 years.
- In Revelation 20:7-10, Satan is released, attempts to attack the holy city, and is then defeated and thrown into the lake of fire, where the beast and false prophet had been thrown.
- In Revelation 20:11-15, Death and Hades gives up their dead, and all are judged. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, and those whose names were not found in the book of life are also thrown into the lake of fire.
- In Revelation 21, we find that those whose names are found in the Book of Life will live forever with God in the new heavens and new earth.
My Comments
There are a number of things to note here. First, given the previous discussion of Gehenna, I think it is safe to say that John’s Lake of Fire imagery was probably inspired by the very Gehenna that Jesus used in the gospels. If so, we must ask, is there anything in Revelation 20 that suggests that the Lake of Fire is a place of eternal torture? Can’t it be the place where the ultimate garbage (Satan, the beast, the false prophet, and all who reject Christ) is burned up and destroyed? Are we reading into this passage of Satan’s defeat the medieval idea of “eternal torture”?
Second, it should be clear that Death/Hades is NOT the same at the Lake of Fire/Gehenna. Death/Hades is the temporary holding place of everyone—believer and non-believer alike. So yes, if you want to shock people for the pure fun of it, you can say, “O I know you’re going to hell! So am I…and Peter, James, Abraham, Moses, Billy Graham, and Mother Teresa!” Of course, you really then should explain what you mean: “Hades” is understood to be the holding place of the dead until the final judgment.
At the time of the final judgment, there will be two options: either eternal life in the new heavens and new earth, or the second death in the Lake of Fire, which is the “second death.” The question is: is this “second death” eternal torture and punishment or utter annihilation? So to put a relevant twist on this, we can all agree that Hitler will end up in the Lake of Fire—the question is then, “Will he be burned in agony for eternity, or will his entire being be consumed?” I am inclined to lean toward the latter (i.e. annihilationsim).
Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth
This phrase is used in a number of places in Matthew. Here is a summary of those instances:
- Matthew 13:42, 50—evil-doers (weeds; children of the evil one) will be cast into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
- Matthew 8:12—the “heirs of the kingdom” (i.e. Jews who have rejected Jesus) will be cast into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
- Matthew 22:13—the parable of the wedding banquet, where the man who sneaks into the banquet without the proper wedding garments is caught and thrown into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
- Matthew 24:51—the parable of the wicked slave who beats his fellow slaves and drinks with drunkards, when he should be taking care of his master’s household. He will be cut in pieces and thrown out with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
- Matthew 25:30—the parable of the talents, where the worthless slave who buried his talent is thrown into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
My Comments
There are a few things to note here. First, this place is obviously reserved for “evil-doers,” “heirs of the kingdom,” “wicked/worthless slaves,” and “hypocrites.” When considered in the historical context of Jesus’ ministry in early first century Galilee and Judea, the objects of these passages seem to be Jesus’ fellow Jews who reject him.
- In Matthew 13, the imagery is the harvest at the end of the age; the “weeds” in his kingdom will be taken up and thrown into the fire. The Jews considered themselves to be God’s kingdom, but Jesus redefines things. The entire field is the world, and the distinction is not between Jews and Gentiles, but rather between the “good seed” (children of the kingdom) and the “weeds/bad seed” (children of the evil one). This imagery goes back to Genesis 3 and the war between the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed. When seen in this light, Jews who reject Jesus will be considered “bad seed,” along with all the rest of the children of the evil one.
- In Matthew 8:12, the “heirs of the kingdom” is clearly a reference to the Jews, who thought themselves to be the heirs of the coming Kingdom of God, yet who rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah. The point is simple: even a Jew, if he rejects YHWH’s promised Messiah, is thrown out of the Kingdom of God and into the darkness. The emphasis isn’t necessarily on “going to hell” or “eternal punishment” per se, but rather on “being cast out” of God’s Kingdom. Being cast out of the kingdom may no doubt ultimately imply and speculate hell, but that’s not the passage’s emphasis.
- Matthew 22:13, the imagery is of the wedding banquet, which goes hand in hand with the idea of God’s coming kingdom. Those who reject God’s call to come to the wedding banquet obviously will miss out on God’s kingdom; furthermore, those who try to “get into the banquet” without the proper wedding garments will be thrown out into darkness as well. Again, the “proper wedding garments” designates accepting Christ as Lord and Messiah. You can’t take part in the wedding banquet of the Messiah if you reject the Messiah.
- Both Matthew 24:51 and 25:30 focuses on wicked/worthless slaves and their unfaithfulness to their master. Jews considered themselves servants of YHWH, who was the master; and they were awaiting the time when He would come and fully restore them. What these two parables point out is that there were some who, instead of taking care of YHWH’s household, beat their fellow servants and wasted their time in worldly pursuits; instead of investing what they were given by YHWH and furthering His Kingdom, they chose to bury it and not reach out to the world. Servants such as these will be kicked out of the Kingdom.
Please note, these are not anti-Semitic passages. The historical context was Jesus speaking to his fellow Jews. Jews were awaiting YHWH’s kingdom and considered themselves YHWH’s servants. Jesus’ message was straightforward and simple: “If you reject YHWH’s Messiah, if you beat and oppress your fellow servants, if you compromise yourselves with worldly pursuits, or if you fail to invest the talents of YHWH’s kingdom into the world, then you are not children of the Kingdom, and you will find yourselves on the outside.”
Finally, it is interesting that in Matthew 13:42, 50 this place is called a “fiery furnace,” but in the other passages the place is a place of “outer darkness.” Technically, you can’t have “darkness” if there’s a fire! But I think this should be seen in the imagery and context of the city of Jerusalem and the Valley of Hinnom. Ultimately, there are two options: God’s holy city/kingdom or the fire of the garbage dump.
Conclusion
To sum up, my friend has good reason to question the whole “eternal torture” idea that many Christians have concerning hell.
(1) Biblically-speaking “Hell” is not a place of eternal torture. “Hell” is Hades, Sheol, the grave—the place of the dead where everyone will go.
(2) Biblically-speaking, the fire imagery we’re so fond of comes from the historical site of Gehenna, the fiery garbage dump of Jerusalem, where garbage is burned up and consumed. In Revelation, this imagery is seen in the Lake of Fire, and John’s point is that there will come a time when even Satan himself will be burned up and destroyed, along with those who reject Christ and oppress His people. Whether or not this “fire” is a source of eternal torture and punishment really isn’t explicitly stated. Therefore, I think it is best that Christians not give the impression of eternal torture and punishment, when these passages do not explicitly say that is the case.
(3) Biblically-speaking, the whole “weeping and gnashing of teeth” passages should be seen in the context of speaking to the Jews of Jesus’ day who rejected him—they’ll be cast out of God’s kingdom, they won’t take part in the Messianic wedding banquet, and they’ll find themselves outside of God’s New Jerusalem, out in the darkness.
It’s good to know that I am considered to be ultimate garbage. Boy, have I got my wife fooled.
Haha…well, I’d have to say, if I was an atheist, and someone asked me, “But what if you’re wrong? What if there is a God?” I would certainly hope that if the two possibilities were eternal torture, or just the end of existence…that I would just cease to exist.
But seriously, I think the metaphorical language used in passages like these is driving home the conviction that evil will ultimately be done away with: men like Tamerlane, Stalin, Hitler, ISIS–those who actively (and “evily”) go about destroying people made in God’s image, will not last, and that God will eventually “throw out the garbage” of evil. Remember, in Revelation, the Lake of Fire is for the Dragon (i.e. Satan), the Beast (i.e. Domitian), the false prophet (i.e. the Roman imperial cult who persecuted anyone who didn’t worship the emperor), and the “kings of the earth” (i.e. those world powers who allied themselves with the de-humanizing and evil practices of Rome.
The focus in Revelation is God’s divine justice will come upon the evil power-brokers of this world.
What are your thoughts on the “eternal fire/punishment” mentioned in Matthew 25 verses 41 and 46?
Well, I think I’d say three things: (1) First, maybe we need to allow Jesus here to speak in metaphor and hyperbole. I don’t think he’s saying there is a LITERAL fire someplace in the universe. The imagery of fire comes from the garbage dump. It also perhaps reflects this idea that when we allow ourselves to be “enflamed” with our passions, be it lust, anger, etc., that those passions will ultimately destroy us. (2) But in any case, we need to ask, “Is Jesus saying that people will be punished in flames forever, or is he saying that it’s the fire itself, and the place of punishment, that is eternal?” Finally (3) Whatever the case it may be, we also have to make sure we limit ourselves to what Jesus is actually addressing. In Matthew 25, he is specifically addressing those who refused to help “the least of these.” Matthew 25 is not addressing the question, “What if I just don’t mentally ‘get’ belief in God?” I don’t think Matthew 25 can be used to address the person who may have grown up in church, become embittered with the hypocrisy in the church, and stopped going to church and doesn’t claim to believe in God. I think that’s a separate issue that Jesus isn’t addressing in Matthew 25.
Like I said in the posts, ultimately we as human beings can’t know for sure–it’s been a topic that believers have speculated about for 2,000 years. These were just my thoughts. I hope they are worth considering.
What about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? If Lazarus is at Abraham’s side and the rich man is “tormented in this flame,” and “there is a great gulf fixed” between where Abraham is and where the rich man is apparently burning, then how is it that Hell is where all the dead go? Or are you just going to chalk it up to this being a parable such that the specifics don’t matter?
Also, what about the worms that never die and the fire that is never quenched?
Protestant theologian the late Edward Fudge (who was from Athens, AL), also held the opinion that “hell” is eternal death and separation from God. He took a lot of flak from Protestant and Catholic theologians who insist on a literal hell. So has Rob Bell, who doesn’t subscribe to the traditional view, either, and actually espouses a kind of universalism, in which everyone will be saved. I don’t agree with everything Bell teaches, certainly on universalism, nevertheless he challenges me and makes me think.
Pax.
Lee.
Hi Joel. Once again, I like your views on Hell. It is a major improvement over the traditional Catholic and Protestant view. Being annihilated in fire is certainly better than burning forever. However, if being “annihilated” is anything like being burned at the stake–you suffer excruciating pain but after a few minutes it is all over—that still doesn’t seem like a just or moral thing to do to people simply for refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the Creator God and their “Lord” and refuse to repent of their “sins”.
I’m curious to know your take on Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Both the “righteous” man and the “evil” man are in the same place but with a barrier separating them. The evil man complains of being in fire and being thirsty. Immaterial souls should not experience pain or be thirsty. So what is going on in this story?
Well, just like virtually all the imagery in the Book of Revelation, you don’t take it as literal descriptions of things. There is no more a literal lake of fire that burns people up to annihilation than there is that Satan is a literal dragon, or that a literal beast is going to come up out of the Mediterranean Sea, or that literal locusts are going to come up from a literal abyss. The POINT that is being made, I believe, at the end of Revelation is that those in Christ will be resurrected and enjoy life in a new heaven and new earth, whereas those oppose God (who is the Lord of Life) will lose their lives and cease to exist.
As for the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, it is pretty clear that it is a parable, or at the very least, a story Jesus made up as a way to condemn the rich and self-righteous of his day of not helping the poor, and by extension, not truly loving God. This is the problem with reading the Bible with hyper-wooden-literalism. Some parts are not meant to be read literally, some are. We aren’t doing certain passages justice when we misinterpret them.
Sorry for the long delay in replying.
I agree that we should be careful not to read every statement in the Bible literally. As you said, “some parts are not meant to be read literally, some are”. But that is the problem. The intent of the authors is not always clear.
In the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, how can you be sure Jesus wasn’t describing what he believed to be the actual situation in Paradise/Hell? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Did the author of the story of dead saints being shaken back to life by an earthquake intend for his audience to believe that story literally or was he speaking metaphorically? Who knows. Similarly, were the stories of a resurrected Jesus eating broiled fish and asking people to touch his wounds meant to be understood literally as real historical events or were these stories theological inventions for the purpose of apologetics?
For most of the stories in the Gospels, I don’t think there is any way to know.
Well, this is where scholarship can help. Those who study ancient biblical texts and biblical history are in a better position to help those who have questions. Obviously, ABSOLUTE certainty about any ancient text or event is impossible, but people have an intelligence that is able to understand quite a bit.
For example, my Masters Thesis was on the Book of Jonah. I can argue anyone up and down that it is essentially a form of a parable written in the post-exilic period. It uses the historical figure of a pre-exilic northern prophet (Jonah) as its main character, but the story is a parable, not a historical account. Am I 100% certain? No. But I’m willing to say my certainty is over 90%.
So yes, the intent of the author is always 100% clear, but the biblical authors were writing something with the intent to convey SOMETHING. We have the extra task to try to get to that original context, and sometimes that is tricky. But overall, most passages can be figured out with a certain amount of confidence. So, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man–Jesus tells the story in the midst of his condemnation of the hypocrisy and greediness of the Pharisees. The setting in the larger context of Luke 16-17 makes it pretty clear he’s not deciding to give a history lesson in the middle of his condemnation of the Pharisees.
The few verses in Matthew 27:53-54 are some of the oddest at first glance. Scholars have different opinions about it. I have mine. Chalk those two verses up to “No one knows for sure.” Still, the majority of what we find in the Bible can be figured out regarding the intent of the authors.
What percentage would you give to the possibility that all the detailed appearance of Jesus stories told in the Gospels and the first chapter of Acts are theological stories and not historical accounts? In other words, the authors sincerely believed that people had received appearances of the resurrected Jesus as described in the Early Creed but their stories of Jesus eating broiled fish and people touching his feet or his wounds were theological inventions.
I believe that Jesus’ original followers really did encounter the physically resurrected Jesus. As a scholar, I am convinced that the resurrection accounts are conveying real history.
As a scholar you believe that there is sufficient evidence for you to be 100% certain that the stories of the women touching the resurrected Jesus’ feet, the story of the resurrected Jesus eating broiled fish, and the story of doubting Thomas being told to touch Jesus’ wounds are historical accounts and not theological inventions? Wow. Even Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown believes that “Luke’s” story of the resurrected Jesus eating broiled fish is theological, not historical; that it was probably written for apologetic purposes. Brown and most NT scholars say the same thing about “Matthew’s” story of guards at the tomb. Even evangelical scholar Mike Licona questions the historicity of “Matthew’s” story of dead saints being brought back to life by an earthquake. And even conservative scholar Richard Bauckham believes that the author of the Gospel of Matthew (whom he does not believe to have been the apostle Matthew) copied/invented the calling of Matthew from “Mark’s” calling of Levi, two different individuals, according to Bauckham.
So with all these scholars stating that there is sufficient evidence to believe that some of the stories in the Gospels are not historical, how can you be ONE HUNDRED percent certain that the resurrection appearance accounts “are conveying real history”? Maybe you are 90% certain, but can you honestly be 100% certain?
I am willing to admit that I cannot be 100% certain that these stories are not historical. I think that is being reasonable.
When did I say “100% certain”? I already said earlier that such a thing as “absolute certainty” is impossible. I’m saying that when it comes to understanding what is being written, those accounts come across as making historical claims. The Gospels are about a real, historical individual, and they are claiming that he did real, historical things, including things like healing people, casting out demons, being crucified and resurrecting.
Again, like I’ve said before, that isn’t to say that they are sometimes using some literary creativity in the presentation of that history and are drawing out theological lessons within the telling of that history, but at bottom, they are making historical claims.
You tend to do this sort of thing, though. Even after I clearly state there is no such thing as “100% certainty,” you ask another question, I give an answer (like, “I believe Jesus’ original followers encountered the physically resurrected Jesus”), and you then pretend to blow a gasket because I said I was “100% certain” about a laundry list of items in the Gospels you just then bring up–but your original question wasn’t about those items and I never said “100% certain”–in fact, I clearly said the opposite. So, let’s try to stop doing that.
I apologize for misunderstanding your following statement:
“I am convinced that the resurrection accounts are conveying real history.”
To me there is no nuance in that statement. To me that sentence says that you believe that ALL the post-resurrection appearance accounts (stories) in the Gospels are historical (none of these stories are fiction). You agree that minor details within each of these stories could be fictitious, but you believe each story as a whole to be historical. Is that correct?
Please correct me if I am again wrong.
If that is what you are saying, I just don’t think you can prove that to be true.
If “Matthew’s” Story of the Calling of Matthew and his Story of the Guards at the Tomb are held to be fictional by most NT scholars, then there is no reason why every single one of “Matthew’s” appearance stories are not also fictional. That isn’t to say that Matthew invented the concept of Jesus’ resurrection. We have earlier evidence that would contradict that claim (the Early Creed).
And the same goes for the post-resurrection appearances stories in Luke. If some prominent, respected scholars like Raymond Brown believe the story of Jesus eating broiled fish to be fictional then why couldn’t the entire story of Jesus appearing in the upper room be fictional?? And ditto for the appearance stories in John, in particular the special appearance to Thomas, not found in any other gospel. Yes, these authors believed that Jesus had appeared to his disciples but how can we know for certain that their detailed stories describing these appearances are historical and not theological embellishments of the original appearance stories found in the Early Creed?
So what I am getting at is this: I don’t think you can prove that even one of the post-resurrection of Jesus appearance stories found in the three later Gospels are historical. They may ALL be theological inventions. The earliest appearance stories are found in the Early Creed. And in the earliest appearance claims, no one claims to have seen and touched a body.
I think it is very interesting that many NT scholars believe that the authors of the Gospels invented fictional appearance of Jesus stories for apologetic purposes, such as the story of the resurrected Jesus eating food in Luke and the story of the resurrected Jesus telling people to poke at his wounds in John. Why would the Gospel authors feel compelled to include fictitious works of apologetics in their Gospels? Specifically, why did the Gospel authors feel compelled to invent stories which emphasized the physicality of Jesus’ resurrected body??
Doesn’t this suggest that the original post-resurrection appearance stories (as found in the Early Creed) did not involve anyone touching the body of Jesus? Jews and other skeptics were claiming that the disciples were seeing ghosts. That wouldn’t do. So the Gospel authors invented fictitious stories of a resurrected body which ate food and could be touched, something ghosts in the first century were not supposed to do. Ghosts in the Greco-Roman world were believed to have bodies, just not bodies that could be touched.
Everything points to the strong possibility that the earliest appearance of the resurrected Jesus stories were based on ghost sightings.
The way you always tend to frame the issue is problematic. You start with the reality that NT scholars acknowledge that there might be some creativity in the way the NT authors speak about Jesus’ resurrection appearances, then you immediately jump to the conclusion that all the resurrection appearance stories are “fiction” and that, in reality, the earliest appearances were just “ghost sightings.” And that is something no serious NT scholar would say or claim. The fact is that from the very beginning, both in the NT accounts, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and then the creeds–it was always and consistently claimed that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that his early followers really did see him alive and resurrected in the flesh.
“it was always and consistently claimed that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that his early followers really did see him alive and resurrected in the flesh.”
No. You cannot prove that. The earliest appearance claims found in the Early Creed say nothing about anyone touching a body of flesh. They may have believed they saw a body, but Greco-Roman ghosts could have bodies that looked like human bodies. The only difference being that ghosts could not be touched.
Hundreds if not thousands of people today claim that they have seen Jesus (in a body) appear to them. We don’t believe them. Why believe the disciples? The fictional apologetic stories of people touching Jesus’ body, invented decades after the death of Jesus, is strong evidence the original sightings of an appearance of Jesus were probably ghost sightings.
The concept that Jesus resurrected body was touchable does not appear in Christian writings until the second and third gospels were written in the 80’s or 90’s.
Yes I can. That is what we find in the mid-first century documents. The Synoptic Gospels are dated to the late 60s-mid 80s. Paul’s letters are mostly in the 50s. All of them testify that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that his first followers were witnesses to that. The earliest official Christian Creed was at Nicaea in AD 325. We know of the earlier creeds from which Nicaea was fashioned that dated to the mid-2nd century, and that means the early creeds were fashioned AFTER the writing of the NT. And the reason they don’t go into all the detail is because they act as summary statements that hit the highlights of the core beliefs of Christianity that are derived from the NT writings and testimony of the apostles.
So yes, as a matter of historical fact, all the textual evidence we have tells us that in the earliest Christian writings we have, the claims of the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus and the apostles’ testimony to it are there.
And to counter your claim that the resurrection stories were invented later on and that the earlier sightings were “ghost sightings,” let’s be clear: You have ZERO evidence of that. NOTHING in any of the ancient writings we have claim that. What does that mean? We have evidence in the form of first century writings that the earliest followers of Jesus claimed he physically rose from the dead and that the apostles witnessed it. By contrast, your 21st century claim that the earliest sightings were “ghost sightings” is backed up, quite literally, with NO evidence of ANY kind, whatsoever. Sorry, that is just a fact.
” the early creeds were fashioned AFTER the writing of the NT.”
Are you really claiming that the “Early Creed” quoted by Paul in First Corinthians 15 was written AFTER the Gospels were written??? If so, you are embarrassing yourself, Joel. The fact is that the earliest account we have of people claiming to have seen a risen Jesus is Paul’s recitation of a “creed” which he himself states he had received from someone else. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Paul was dead when the Gospels were written. You are seriously in error on this one, Joel.
Are you really asking me to provide evidence that people LITERALLY saw ghosts, Joel? Come on. The fact that the evangelists felt compelled to create apologetic stories of a touchable resurrected body is EVIDENCE itself that the original sightings of Jesus were PROBABLY cases of people seeing things that weren’t really there (illusions, vivid dreams, hallucinations).
In addition, we have MASSIVE quantities of evidence of thousands of people throughout human history believing they have seen dead people.
I have massive evidence for my argument for what PROBABLY happened 2,000 years ago. What do you have? You have not ONE undisputed eyewitness statement of anyone claiming he or she touched a resurrected body. Not one.
I was obviously referencing the early official creed of Nicaea and the known Apostle’s creed from the mid-2nd century, like I said.
As for I Corinthians 15, Paul’s reference that Jesus “was raised” is a reference to his resurrection, which denotes actual physicality. By definition, “resurrection” meant PHYSICAL resurrection. If it wasn’t a physical resurrection, Paul would not have said it. Ghost sightings, seeing visions, etc. is not what first century Jews called “resurrection.” Again, this is just basic facts about first century Judaism. No one in their right mind thinks that when Paul talked about the resurrection of Jesus that he was talking about a mere “vision” or “ghost sighting.”
All I’m saying is that if you are going to claim that the earliest followers of Christ claimed they experienced a non-bodily “ghost sighting” of Jesus, you need to provide EVIDENCE of it. Not evidence that they actually saw ghosts, but evidence that they actually claimed to have seen ghosts. But as we all know, there is no evidence of that. Everything we have from the first century tells us that the earliest followers said Jesus was physically resurrected and that the apostles were witnesses to it. Again, you might not believe that it happened, but you cannot in good conscience try to claim that they didn’t actually claim that.
“The fact that the evangelists felt compelled to create apologetic stories of a touchable resurrected body is EVIDENCE itself that the original sightings of Jesus were PROBABLY cases of people seeing things that weren’t really there (illusions, vivid dreams, hallucinations).” –You are reading a whole boatload of assumptions into the NT texts we have. Your rationale goes like this: (1) The Synoptic Gospels claim an actual bodily resurrection and have stories/accounts of the disciples experiencing a physically resurrected Jesus; (2) THEREFORE, the fact that they do this is EVIDENCE that the original sightings were…illusions, dreams, hallucinations, “ghost sightings.”
That is simply dizzying logic! Writings about a physical resurrection ARE NOT “evidence” of “ghost sightings.” Again, your claims (admit it) have ZERO evidence to back them up. “ZERO” does not equal “MASSIVE.”
“All I’m saying is that if you are going to claim that the earliest followers of Christ claimed they experienced a non-bodily “ghost sighting” of Jesus, you need to provide EVIDENCE of it. Not evidence that they actually saw ghosts, but evidence that they actually claimed to have seen ghosts. But as we all know, there is no evidence of that.”
My goodness, Joel. Talk about strawmanning.
I never ONCE said that the disciples claimed or believed that they had seen a ghost. Good grief. I believe like you that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen a resurrected BODY. I am not contesting what they BELIEVED they saw, I am contesting what they actually saw. Just because someone believes they saw a back from the dead body doesn’t mean they did.
Is it or is it not possible for someone to *believe* they have seen a dead person without literally seeing a dead person? Yes! We have thousands of reports of just that! Thousands of people, throughout history, have claimed to see the dead. Did they? I don’t think so, and I will bet that you too doubt most of these claims.
You reject thousands of other dead person sighting claims, yet you believe a handful of dead person sighting claims from the first century. That makes zero sense. And I would bet a major reason why you believe the dead Jesus sighting claims is because there are reports that his dead body was touched. Yet many scholars believe that these stories of people touching Jesus’ dead but resurrected body are works of apologetics!
The evidence for first century dead person sightings is poor.
“I am contesting what they actually saw.” –But here is where we get back that “evidence” claim. You agree that all the evidence we have shows that the earliest followers claimed Jesus physically rose again. Okay.
But then you proceed to speculate–WITHOUT EVIDENCE–that in reality they just saw a “ghost sighting,” and you base it on the fact that many people claim to have seen ghosts of people “come back from the dead.” Most, if not all, of those claims involve people claiming they encounter the SPIRIT of a dead person…or a vision, or a dream, etc. They don’t claim they encounter an actually RESURRECTED person. Yet in all our first century Christian writings, the claim is ALWAYS that Jesus was RESURRECTED. Therefore, trying to tie that NT claim to people claiming to encounter spirits or ghosts of dead people fail, because nowhere in the NT do the authors claim the disciples saw the spirit or ghost of Jesus. Hence, you have zero evidence for your claim. Instead, the only “evidence” you give is that the NT writers claimed Jesus was physically resurrected, so that must mean that they really saw a ghost sighting.
So just so we are clear: if someone claims to have seen a resurrected body, we must believe that they really did? Is that what you are saying?
No, I’m saying that if all the first century textual evidence we have claims that Jesus’ earliest followers claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus, then we should conclude that they claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. What we can’t do is engage in (literally) baseless speculation without any actual evidence and say, “Oh, they really just saw a vision, or a dream, a ‘ghost sighting,’ and then later Christians CHANGED it to sound like a bodily resurrection.” Why? Because, like I’ve said, there is ZERO evidence for that speculative claim.
It would better to just say, “Yes, they claimed he was resurrected and that they personally witnessed it, but I don’t believe they really did,” and leave it at that. As soon as you start going into baseless speculation without evidence, it becomes apparent that you’re out over your skis and aren’t really trying to get at the truth, but rather are just pushing a certain agenda.
Ok. But I never contested that the original disciples *claimed* that they had seen the bodily resurrected Jesus. I believe that they probably did. What I claimed is that we have no early testimony that anyone claimed to have touched the body. These stories of people touching the body don’t appear until the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, written sometime between 70-90 CE. The earliest accounts of appearances, found in The Early Creed of First Corinthians 15, say nothing about anyone touching the body.
So my question for you is: Can one *believe* that they have seen a resurrected body but in fact be mistaken?
Well, that comes down to the question as to whether the Gospel writers were making things up in the 60s-80s, or whether they were faithfully conveying the claims that from the very beginning of the Christian movement. I think they were faithfully conveying the apostolic witness and message from the beginning. And I think you are making too much of what Paul says (or doesn’t say) in I Corinthians 15. Again, when he says Jesus was resurrected/raised, he’s speaking as a Pharisee–and the Pharisees held the clear belief in a resurrection that entailed the raising of the actual physical body. Therefore, in a quick recounting of what was passed down, for Paul to say, “Jesus was raised…with a physical body that his disciples touched…” would have simply have been redundant.
As for your last question, sure. But then again, aside from Jesus, how many claims of people ACTUALLY encountering a formerly dead person now resurrected are you aware of? Not they saw a person in a vision or dream, or they encountered a spirit or ghost–but they made that specific claim that a formerly dead person they witnessed die was now physically alive again? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any…and that makes the NT claim of Jesus’ resurrection so unique.
“As for your last question, sure. But then again, aside from Jesus, how many claims of people ACTUALLY encountering a formerly dead person now resurrected are you aware of? ”
I do not question for a second the uniqueness of the resurrection claim. It was very unique. But just because a claim is unique, does not make it true. Prior to Jesus, no one had ever claimed that a single person had been resurrected. Very true. But plenty of people had claimed, for all of human history, to have experienced encounters with dead people. And the concept of resurrected bodies was not new. Resurrection was an established belief in the “mother religion” of Christianity, Judaism. Christians simply gave a new twist to an established belief. That is what happens with most new religions and cults: they take an established belief in the mother religion and give it just enough of a twist that they are expelled from the mother religion.
So the claim that someone had seen a dead person was not new. The claim that someone had seen a resurrected dead person was new. But again, the uniqueness of a claim does not make it true.
This man claims that he saw the resurrected body of Jesus. Should we believe him? No. And if we don’t believe him, why should we believe the disciples??
–We agree that a claim of seeing a resurrected body is very unique.
–We agree that someone can make a very unique claim, that they have seen a resurrected body, sincerely believing this claim to be true, but be mistaken.
Where we seem to disagree is that you believe that the uniqueness of a claim makes it more probable to be true. I disagree. The uniqueness of a claim in no way guarantees its veracity.