If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[Gary]

Except that the Bible makes it clear that numerous people encountered Jesus after He rose and even tested to see that He wasn't a vision or something (the "Doubting Thomas" account).

For all we know, the story of a "doubting Thomas" and the other post-death appearances stories in the Gospels did not exist until the anonymous, non-eyewitness authors of these books invented them in 70 AD and later.

[Gary]

Ok, let's go with theistic evolution. I'm curious how it all happened. Is this it:

After millions of years of watching thousands if not millions of our primordial ancestors suffer and die, God, for some unknown reason, decides he wants to give two homo sapiens immortal souls. He promises to give them immortality if they agree to worship and obey him, and, have "faith" that one day he will send himself, as his son, to redeem them from their sins.

Sins???

Where did "sin" come into play?

And why would God, after so long a period of time, suddenly decide that TWO homo sapiens deserved immortality? Why not give this free will offer to all homo sapiens? And why leave out homo africanus and homo erectus?

Was God bored?

Theist evolution sure appears to me to be a real can of worms.

[rogue06]

For all we know, the story of a "doubting Thomas" and the other post-death appearances stories in the Gospels did not exist until the anonymous, non-eyewitness authors of these books invented them in 70 AD and later.

You seem to forget that there were still witnesses to what took place who were alive. And people who they told what had happened as well. If someone just started making stories up then they would have simply been rejected as fraudulent rather than embraced.

[Gary]

Dreams are not a likely explanation for the Resurrection belief of the disciples. I can name scholars who have suggested visions as the cause of the belief. I cannot find a single one who supports the "dream" theory.

What is your definition of vision???

Here is one from the dictionary: "an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition."

So I don't know what you are babbling about when you say that "scholars" don't support the "dream" theory. Most skeptics, including scholars such as Bart Ehrman, believe that the early Christian belief in a bodily resurrection was built on vivid dreams which are the same thing as "visions". You seem to be of the misguided notion that "visions" can only occur when someone is wide awake. Sorry! But visions can also appear "in dreams or trances".

Many, many thousands of grieving family and friends of the recently deceased have claimed to have had vivid dreams in which they see, touch, and speak to their dead loved ones. We skeptics see no reason why these exact same experiences could not have happened to Jesus' followers who interpreted these experiences in the same way that these grieving families interpret these experiences: "My dead loved one/friend came back from the dead to visit me."

[Gary]

You seem to forget that there were still witnesses to what took place who were alive. And people who they told what had happened as well. If someone just started making stories up then they would have simply been rejected as fraudulent rather than embraced.

What evidence do you have that eyewitnesses to the crucifixion of Jesus and to the alleged events shortly after his death in circa 30 AD were still alive in circa 65-75 AD when the first gospel was written?

It is certainly possible, and very likely, that many persons living in Palestine who were alive in circa 30 AD were still alive in circa 70 AD. But that doesn't mean that any of them were witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion. I think you are assuming that Jesus death was the big, earth shattering event that the Gospels make it out to be. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe these details were additional theological embellishments. Maybe Jesus was executed while Pilate was prefect, but Pilate himself was never directly involved in Jesus sentencing. Maybe Jesus was just one of many "dooms day prophets" who irritated the Jewish authorities and was quickly and without much fanfare given over to the Romans to "eliminate".

So unless an eyewitness survived to circa 70 AD, maybe no one else would have remembered Jesus' death and therefore no one would have been able to proof read the first gospel for errors and embellishments.

[psstein]

What is your definition of vision???

Here is one from the dictionary: "an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition."

So I don't know what you are babbling about when you say that "scholars" don't support the "dream" theory. Most skeptics, including scholars such as Bart Ehrman, believe that the early Christian belief in a bodily resurrection was built on vivid dreams which are the same thing as "visions". You seem to be of the misguided notion that "visions" can only occur when someone is wide awake. Sorry! But visions can also appear "in dreams or trances".

Many, many thousands of grieving family and friends of the recently deceased have claimed to have had vivid dreams in which they see, touch, and speak to their dead loved ones.

Ehrman, Ludemann, Crossley, Casey, et al. support a hallucination theory. They believe that the disciples had hallucinations that convinced them that Jesus had risen from the dead. These hallucinations were, at least in Ludemann's view, grief hallucinations. I think Ehrman holds to a similar argument, though I won't speak for him. I know that Crossley and Casey do, as they've argued it in their published work.

Let's say you're correct about the dream hypothesis. You can easily explain the appearances to Peter and the Twelve. You can't explain the appearance to James or Paul. Paul likely never met Jesus (assuming that Baur and Porter are wrong in their thesis). Why would Paul, who never met Jesus, have a vivid dream that convinced him that Jesus had risen from the dead? You also have to figure out whether or not dreams have transformative power. People know what a dream is like, Gary. While dreams may (or may not) have been considered a form of divine communication in the ANE, it's made very clear when people are having dreams and when they're not.

[psstein]

So unless an eyewitness survived to circa 70 AD, maybe no one else would have remembered Jesus' death and therefore no one would have been able to proof read the first gospel for errors and embellishments.

Childish reasoning at best here. You're assuming that the oral tradition was uncontrolled, which it doesn't seem to have been.

[Gary]

Ehrman, Ludemann, Crossley, Casey, et al. support a hallucination theory. They believe that the disciples had hallucinations that convinced them that Jesus had risen from the dead. These hallucinations were, at least in Ludemann's view, grief hallucinations. I think Ehrman holds to a similar argument, though I won't speak for him. I know that Crossley and Casey do, as they've argued it in their published work.

Let's say you're correct about the dream hypothesis. You can easily explain the appearances to Peter and the Twelve. You can't explain the appearance to James or Paul. Paul likely never met Jesus (assuming that Baur and Porter are wrong in their thesis). Why would Paul, who never met Jesus, have a vivid dream that convinced him that Jesus had risen from the dead? You also have to figure out whether or not dreams have transformative power. People know what a dream is like, Gary. While dreams may (or may not) have been considered a form of divine communication in the ANE, it's made very clear when people are having dreams and when they're not.

Good. So we are actually talking to each other again instead of hurling accusations and insulting each other. Let's see how long we can keep that up.

I will go on Bart Ehrman's blog and find exactly what he says on this issue, but I'm pretty sure that he does not believe that the most likely explanation for this belief is "hallucinations". Hallucinations occur when someone is awake. Most skeptics I have read do not believe that the disciples of Jesus were hallucinating during the middle the day about a dead Jesus appearing to them. Most of us believe that they experienced what tens of thousands of other grieving family and friends have experienced: vivid dreams, at night, in which the loved one or friend appears to them in bodily form, speaks to them, and even touches them.

Why would Paul claim to have received a vision (vivid dream) of Jesus?

Answer: I have no idea, but here is one scenario that many skeptics believe is possible:

---Paul was mentally unstable. From his own writings we know that he was prone to visions, including visions of being teleported to different levels of heaven. As someone who spent a great deal of his time hunting down and persecuting the followers of Jesus, the man Jesus would have frequently been in his thoughts. Human beings "lose it" all the time. It is possible that Paul had an emotional/mental breakdown and who popped into his mind: Jesus of Nazareth.

---Strange conversions happen. A strange conversion is not proof that the new religion is true.

And James?

He loved his brother. He grieved for his dead brother. And like tens of thousands of other grieving family members of the recently departed, he had a vivid dream one night in which Jesus appeared, told him that he wanted him to follow his teachings. James believed and joined the Church.

[Gary]

Childish reasoning at best here. You're assuming that the oral tradition was uncontrolled, which it doesn't seem to have been.

It is possible that the oral tradition was perfectly controlled...until the author of Mark made up new embellishments forty years later. What evidence do you have that any eyewitness was alive in 70 AD to "proof read" this new book and point out that no eyewitness had ever heard of a Joseph of Arimathea and his empty, rock-hewn tomb?

It is also possible that the oral legend was not controlled. To say that it was, as a fact, is an assumption.

[Gary]

Ehrman, Ludemann, Crossley, Casey, et al. support a hallucination theory. They believe that the disciples had hallucinations that convinced them that Jesus had risen from the dead. These hallucinations were, at least in Ludemann's view, grief hallucinations. I think Ehrman holds to a similar argument, though I won't speak for him. I know that Crossley and Casey do, as they've argued it in their published work.

Let's say you're correct about the dream hypothesis. You can easily explain the appearances to Peter and the Twelve. You can't explain the appearance to James or Paul. Paul likely never met Jesus (assuming that Baur and Porter are wrong in their thesis). Why would Paul, who never met Jesus, have a vivid dream that convinced him that Jesus had risen from the dead? You also have to figure out whether or not dreams have transformative power. People know what a dream is like, Gary. While dreams may (or may not) have been considered a form of divine communication in the ANE, it's made very clear when people are having dreams and when they're not.

I believe you are very wrong in assuming that Bart Ehrman believes that the appearances of Jesus were based on hallucinations. I will give you some quotes from Bart from his blog. (FYI: I will only quote from above a paywall, not beyond it, as I know that Adrift will immediately report me to the mods as he had done in the past):

"In considering the significance of the visions of Jesus, a key question immediately comes to the fore that in my judgment has not been given its full due by most scholars investigating the issue. Why do we have such a strong and pervasive tradition that some of the disciples doubted the resurrection, even though Jesus appeared to them? The reason this question is so pressing is because, as we will see later in this chapter, modern research on visions has shown that visions are almost always believed by the people who experience them.So why were the visions of Jesus not always believed? Or rather, why were they so consistently doubted?

(emphasis, Gary's)

Source: http://ehrmanblog.org/the-disciples-...n-for-members/

What does Ehrman think about the Witness List in First Corinthians 15? He believes that Paul most probable did receive this "creed" from someone, possibly from James and Peter. Ehrman does not believe that Paul simply made this list up out of "whole cloth". However, Ehrman presents evidence that strongly indicates that this list is very carefully constructed most likely for literary purposes and that it has some very strange oddities in it. Bottom line, Ehrman finds this list no more credible as evidence for the "appearance" of a dead person than the many RCC claims of Virgin Mary sightings.

Most of the "good stuff" in this post is beyond a paywall so I will not copy any of it. If you want to read it, you will have to pay Ehrman's $3.99/monthly membership fee (all proceeds go to charity).

Here is the link: http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-appearan...0-for-members/

[seer]

Do you believe that Darwin's theory of Evolution and the Natural Selection of species is true?

I don't know, I think there is good evidence for it. But in Science things can change, there are real paradigm shifts. But it would not change my position. At some point, man became aware of God, were ensouled and became morally aware and morally responsible.

[rogue06]

What evidence do you have that eyewitnesses to the crucifixion of Jesus and to the alleged events shortly after his death in circa 30 AD were still alive in circa 65-75 AD when the first gospel was written?

It is certainly possible, and very likely, that many persons living in Palestine who were alive in circa 30 AD were still alive in circa 70 AD. But that doesn't mean that any of them were witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion. I think you are assuming that Jesus death was the big, earth shattering event that the Gospels make it out to be. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe these details were additional theological embellishments. Maybe Jesus was executed while Pilate was prefect, but Pilate himself was never directly involved in Jesus sentencing. Maybe Jesus was just one of many "dooms day prophets" who irritated the Jewish authorities and was quickly and without much fanfare given over to the Romans to "eliminate".

So unless an eyewitness survived to circa 70 AD, maybe no one else would have remembered Jesus' death and therefore no one would have been able to proof read the first gospel for errors and embellishments.

They didn't actually have to be standing in Golgotha looking up at Him on the cross to know that He was crucified. For the most part His followers were in hiding scared for their lives during that time. It would be the witnesses to the Risen Christ and those who heard their direct testimonies who would have been the ones who would have rejected an account filled with romantic embellishments as being alien to what they knew. And given how quickly the Synoptics were accepted this strongly indicates that they were accurate.

[Gary]

I don't know, I think there is good evidence for it. But in Science things can change, there are real paradigm shifts. But it would not change my position. At some point, man became aware of God, were ensouled and became morally aware and morally responsible.

But if you look at the evidence, doesn't it seem to you that theistic evolutionists are simply "shoehorning" Christian theology into the facts instead of letting the facts speak for themselves? Why would God allow so many ancestors of homo sapiens to suffer and die for millions of years prior to one day deciding to give "souls" to two homo sapiens?

And why would God do all this? Was he bored? Lonely?

And if God knew that these two homo sapiens would quickly "sin" against him, why did he bother? The overwhelming majority of the descendants of these two homo sapiens have rejected Yahweh/Jesus, so it can't be said that God ensouled homo sapiens for OUR benefit. Doesn't the evidence point to the fact that homo sapiens exist by chance, not by design. We are here because of natural selection, not because of a benevolent deity.

[Gary]

They didn't actually have to be standing in Golgotha looking up at Him on the cross to know that He was crucified. For the most part His followers were in hiding scared for their lives during that time. It would be the witnesses to the Risen Christ and those who heard their direct testimonies who would have been the ones who would have rejected an account filled with romantic embellishments as being alien to what they knew. And given how quickly the Synoptics were accepted this strongly indicates that they were accurate.

You are again making assumptions.

How many people were in Jesus' band of disciples? Twenty? Forty? Sixty?

Answer: We don't know.

Once again, you cannot prove that any eyewitness to the events surrounding the death of Jesus was alive in circa 70 AD to confirm or reject the historical claims in that book. What evidence do you have that the Gospel of Mark was universally accepted prior to the beginning of the second century when most certainly the majority of persons alive in 30 AD would be dead.

My good friend, Stein, doesn't believe that Christians would have allowed embellishments to the oral story. But this cannot be proven. However, it can be shown that down through human history, rumors (oral stories) often quickly change, adding and deleting details at a rapid pace as the story passes between persons, and in this case, between peoples, countries, cultures, and languages, over a period of approximately FORTY YEARS.

To claim that the original story of Jesus never changed prior to the writing of the first gospel is UNPROVABLE and flies in the face of collective human experience. And remember, the gospels were not written in Palestine. How long did it take for them to get to Palestine after they had been written? Do we have any evidence that anyone in Palestine had read the Gospels prior to the end of the first century?

[psstein]

It is possible that the oral tradition was perfectly controlled...until the author of Mark made up new embellishments forty years later. What evidence do you have that any eyewitness was alive in 70 AD to "proof read" this new book and point out that no eyewitness had ever heard of a Joseph of Arimathea and his empty, rock-hewn tomb?

It is also possible that the oral legend was not controlled. To say that it was, as a fact, is an assumption.

There are good reasons to think it was controlled even beyond the writing of Mark. You're making the same error that Bultmann and the form critics did, honestly. It's not like everyone dropped dead once Mark was written. The eyewitnesses started to die off around the mid-60s, hence the writing of the gospels.

Anthony Le Donne's book on Historical Jesus and Memory is very good in discussing the role of memory up to and after the gospels.