Questions for Zack

[Adrift]

A couple of questions if you do not mind:

You've said in some recent posts that you doubt the legitimacy of the empty tomb of Jesus. Seeing as most secular scholars grant the fact of the secular tomb, what credence do you offer for a non-empty tomb?

You seem to believe in the factual reality of "satan" and "demons". As a Christian to a non-Christian would you care to elaborate?

[ZackMartin]

You've said in some recent posts that you doubt the legitimacy of the empty tomb of Jesus. Seeing as most secular scholars grant the fact of the secular tomb, what credence do you offer for a non-empty tomb?

I'm not saying it is false. I'm simply saying that I am yet to be convinced it is true. Paul makes no explicit mention of an empty tomb (1 Corinthians 15:3-7), so it is unclear if Paul believed in or was aware of the concept. 1Cor is commonly dated to 53-57 CE. The earliest clear reference to the empty tomb is in Mark, which is usually dated to 70 CE or later. So that is 10-20 years further along. Jesus would have died around 30-36 CE, so Paul is roughly 20 years after the crucifixion, and Mark is another 10-20. And this is all assuming the majority dates are correct - maybe Mark or Paul is later than the majority thinks - dating these sorts of texts is an inexact science. And then, even if we date Mark, we have no idea how old the story of the empty tomb is - it is very unlikely Mark made it up himself, it is likely he got it from earlier sources, but how old or how widespread that belief was prior to him I do not know. If there are legendary beliefs in the Gospels, it seems plausible to me that they may have arisen in a small subgroup of the early Christian community, and from there spread more widely. A varying set of witnesses saw the empty tomb, but a "Mary" is the common element - it is possible that the idea arose after the claimed witnesses had died, and spread at first among circles that lacked personal familiarity with them, so that no one could argue "She never said she saw that!"; and then later when even those people had passed on, it then began to spread among their circles also.

Is it possible that a legend of the empty tomb arose in the intervening period? It's possible. I think it unlikely that the resurrection itself was legendary - in that I think it unlikely that the early Christians would have believed in a resurrection unless they had some kind of subjective experience that matched it. But that experience could take the nature of visions, etc. I think it is plausible that the more concrete elements of the story - including the empty tomb - are later embellishments.

I'm inclined to think the disciples did not know where Jesus' body was. Maybe his body was buried in a common tomb. Then they had experiences of his resurrection. Then the various legends of the empty tomb evolved later. But I don't claim to actually know. All anyone can do - myself or anyone else - is conjecture.

You seem to believe in the factual reality of "satan" and "demons". As a Christian to a non-Christian would you care to elaborate?

Yes I believe in Satan and demons. The concept makes sense to me, especially in light of the world we live in - Auschwitz is enough for me to believe that Satan is real. So are Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Dennis Rader, Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway, etc.

[Adrift]

I'm not saying it is false. I'm simply saying that I am yet to be convinced it is true. Paul makes no explicit mention of an empty tomb (1 Corinthians 15:3-7), so it is unclear if Paul believed in or was aware of the concept.

Well, by that passage, Paul was certainly aware that Jesus was buried, and that he was bodily raised which is in keeping with Jewish expectation; 1 Corinthians 15:16-17, "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."

1Cor is commonly dated to 53-57 CE.The earliest clear reference to the empty tomb is in Mark, which is usually dated to 70 CE or later. So that is 10-20 years further along. Jesus would have died around 30-36 CE, so Paul is roughly 20 years after the crucifixion, and Mark is another 10-20. And this is all assuming the majority dates are correct - maybe Mark or Paul is later than the majority thinks - dating these sorts of texts is an inexact science.

As as I understand it, most Biblical scholars date Paul's creed here (an oral tradition which he "also received") within 5 years of Jesus' death.

And then, even if we date Mark, we have no idea how old the story of the empty tomb is - it is very unlikely Mark made it up himself, it is likely he got it from earlier sources, but how old or how widespread that belief was prior to him I do not know. If there are legendary beliefs in the Gospels, it seems plausible to me that they may have arisen in a small subgroup of the early Christian community, and from there spread more widely. A varying set of witnesses saw the empty tomb, but a "Mary" is the common element - it is possible that the idea arose after the claimed witnesses had died, and spread at first among circles that lacked personal familiarity with them, so that no one could argue "She never said she saw that!"; and then later when even those people had passed on, it then began to spread among their circles also.

It seems you're somewhat unfamiliar with historical research on the empty tomb, especially as concerning female testimony, (as outlined by Josephus and the Talmud). The Jewish renown historian Geza Vermes puts it thus,

Jesus the Jew

The corollary must be, curious though this may sound, that for the historian it is Mark's evidence, the weakest of all, that possesses the best claim for authenticity, the story brought by two women which - to quote Luke - the apostles themselves thought such 'nonsense' that they would not believe it....in the end, when every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer and the critical agnostic alike -- and even perhaps of the disciples themselves -- are simply interpretations of the one disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb.

© source where applicable

Is it possible that a legend of the empty tomb arose in the intervening period? It's possible.

Based on the Josephus and Talmudic response towards women witnesses, according to historians. it's extremely unlikely.

I think it unlikely that the resurrection itself was legendary - in that I think it unlikely that the early Christians would have believed in a resurrection unless they had some kind of subjective experience that matched it. But that experience could take the nature of visions, etc. I think it is plausible that the more concrete elements of the story - including the empty tomb - are later embellishments.

It seems that legendary accretions are more likely in the years post the synoptic Gospels. So for instance, we find truly legendary proclamations found in the 2nd century pseudepigraphical "Gospel of Peter" where we're told that giant angels move the heavily guarded stone from Jesus' tomb, and out steps a giant Jesus and a talking cross.

I'm inclined to think the disciples did not know where Jesus' body was. Maybe his body was buried in a common tomb. Then they had experiences of his resurrection. Then the various legends of the empty tomb evolved later. But I don't claim to actually know. All anyone can do - myself or anyone else - is conjecture.

It seems unlikely that the disciples had no idea where the body was laid, and the earliest opponents of the belief of the resurrected Christ have no problem with the place of Christ's burial either, yet seem to have thought that the Disciples knew where his body was, but stole it.

Yes I believe in Satan and demons. The concept makes sense to me, especially in light of the world we live in - Auschwitz is enough for me to believe that Satan is real. So are Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Dennis Rader, Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway, etc.

I find this very interesting. Who, or what do you think "satan" is? Is he a once angel of light, cast out of the heavenlies or something else?

[ZackMartin]

Well, by that passage, Paul was certainly aware that Jesus was buried, and that he was bodily raised which is in keeping with Jewish expectation; 1 Corinthians 15:16-17, "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."

Belief in a bodily resurrection and belief in the discovery of an empty tomb are slightly different things though. I'm not one of those people who thinks that Paul believed in a "spiritual" as opposed to "physical" resurrection. That doesn't seem very likely - seems more Docetic or Gnostic than Pauline. (However I also question whether the "spiritual" vs. "physical" could be a false dichotomy.)

Belief in a physical resurrection, at its most physical end, would imply that Jesus' tomb was empty. But a belief that Jesus' tomb was empty would be compatible with the disciples not actually knowing where that tomb was. They could have simply inferred it - i.e. we saw Jesus after he died, so his body must not be in his tomb any more, hence the tomb must be empty. So they could have believed that Jesus' tomb was empty without having any idea of where that tomb was; and then the ideas of witnesses to the discovery of the tomb as empty, and the link to Joseph of Arimathea, etc., could have grown up around that core idea.

Some have commented that it is strange, and I'm inclined to agree with them, that no early tradition of the location of Jesus tomb survives; one would have thought it would have become a centre of Christian pilgrimage, especially at Easter. Of course we do have traditions about the location of Jesus' tomb - but they are late and questionable. So maybe that is evidence that they didn't know where Jesus was buried? Or maybe they did, but the knowledge was lost in the chaos of the Jewish-Roman wars? How can one know? I'm not convinced that anyone can.

I also find it interesting that Paul mentions Cephas and then the twelve as the first people to see Jesus, not some group of women. This suggests the possibility that Paul was unaware of, or disbelieved, the tradition that women were the first witnesses. Or maybe he was aware and believed, and just decided to omit mentioning them in this letter for some reason. Not sure if anyone really knows, or can know. It's an argument from silence either way.

As as I understand it, most Biblical scholars date Paul's creed here (an oral tradition which he "also received") within 5 years of Jesus' death.

I'm sure it wasn't original to Paul. But can we really date this tradition Paul recounts with such precision? I'm doubtful of that.

Based on the Josephus and Talmudic response towards women witnesses, according to historians. it's extremely unlikely.

I agree, if someone set out to intentionally and consciously make up a story about Jesus' resurrection, they would not have chosen woman witnesses. However, I don't think it is likely a story like this would have been consciously invented. Legends tend to develop by other processes. They say they would not have claimed woman witnesses unless such witnesses really existed it, because a woman's testimony was devalued. I agree that the testimony was devalued - but this assumes that the story if legendary was created with the intention of trying to convince those who didn't believe in the resurrection that it happened. The story could have served other functions. Maybe the legend first arose among women with the (conscious or unconscious) intention of elevating women, and initially spread among them. We can speculate, but we don't really know.

It seems that legendary accretions are more likely in the years post the synoptic Gospels. So for instance, we find truly legendary proclamations found in the 2nd century pseudepigraphical "Gospel of Peter" where we're told that giant angels move the heavily guarded stone from Jesus' tomb, and out steps a giant Jesus and a talking cross.

I don't see why we should draw a line in the sand at the time of the synoptics, and say - legends can arise after this, but not before this. I would think the social processes of legend-making would still exist in the synoptic and pre-synoptic. Of course, the later legends are often much more spectacular than the earlier accounts - but one possible explanation of that, is that early legends arose among people still with some connection to the original events, so there was a limit to how spectacular they could be without straining credulity, while later accounts spread among people further from those events and so would find spectacularity less incredulous. That said, I look at some elements of Matthew's account - darkness, earthquakes, the tearing of the temple, the dead rising from their graves and wandering about - and I wonder if one can really argue that is less legendary-sounding than some of the spectacular material in some of the later apocryphal gospels. If the later accounts sound too impossible to be true, then the same could be said of some parts of the synoptics; if those parts of the synoptics are believable, why not later accounts also.

It seems unlikely that the disciples had no idea where the body was laid,

I'm not so sure about that.

and the earliest opponents of the belief of the resurrected Christ have no problem with the place of Christ's burial either, yet seem to have thought that the Disciples knew where his body was, but stole it.

Are you referring to Matt 28:13? I'm sure the story spread among opponents of Christianity that the disciples stole the body. But that doesn't mean that those spreading the story knew where the body was. It's an easy and obvious tale to invent, and it has the added advantage of making his disciples look really bad. You don't need to know anything about Jesus' actual death and burial to come up with it - just bare knowledge of the Resurrection claim, and a dislike of Christianity. And then, it seems quite possible that Matt 28:13's linking it to the tale of the empty tomb, and ascribing it to an intentional invention of the Jewish authorities right after Jesus' resurrection, is anachronism mixed with counter-polemic. But anyway, I don't think anyone really knows, trying to find out the truth about what really happened here is like trying to get blood from a stone.

I find this very interesting. Who, or what do you think "satan" is? Is he a once angel of light, cast out of the heavenlies or something else?

Well, I believe in spirits, both good spirits (angels) and evil spirits (demons). Satan then is the chief of the evil spirits. As to the whole "angel who rebelled and was cast out of heaven" story - I neither believe that nor disbelieve it. I don't say that it is true, but I don't say that it is false either.

[Adrift]

Some have commented that it is strange, and I'm inclined to agree with them, that no early tradition of the location of Jesus tomb survives; one would have thought it would have become a centre of Christian pilgrimage, especially at Easter.

Scholars generally believe that the reason there were no Christian pilgrimages is because there was no body. So, this is usually cited as evidence for the empty tomb.

I also find it interesting that Paul mentions Cephas and then the twelve as the first people to see Jesus, not some group of women. This suggests the possibility that Paul was unaware of, or disbelieved, the tradition that women were the first witnesses. Or maybe he was aware and believed, and just decided to omit mentioning them in this letter for some reason. Not sure if anyone really knows, or can know. It's an argument from silence either way.

Since most scholars are agreed that the passage you're referring to, 1 Corinthians15:3-7, is an early creed, it makes plenty of sense that this would not include the witness of women. Again female testimony was usually considered suspect, it doesn't make good material for a popular creed, especially if the goal is evangelism. We only find it in the Gospel accounts because the Gospels are an attempt to offer a more thorough account of Christ's ministry and resurrection...

I'm sure it wasn't original to Paul. But can we really date this tradition Paul recounts with such precision? I'm doubtful of that.

I'm just offering the opinion of those trained in Biblical criticism. You're free to doubt.

However, I don't think it is likely a story like this would have been consciously invented. Legends tend to develop by other processes. They say they would not have claimed woman witnesses unless such witnesses really existed it, because a woman's testimony was devalued. I agree that the testimony was devalued - but this assumes that the story if legendary was created with the intention of trying to convince those who didn't believe in the resurrection that it happened. The story could have served other functions. Maybe the legend first arose among women with the (conscious or unconscious) intention of elevating women, and initially spread among them. We can speculate, but we don't really know.

Well, but scholars do believe they know. And I'm not talking Christian scholars, I'm talking the majority of scholars across the board believe the tomb was likely empty. So, you're swimming up stream against the consensus there. I mean, again, you're free to do so, but just letting you know. It doesn't sound like you're very well read on the subject. I'd recommend NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God if you're interested.

Well, I believe in spirits, both good spirits (angels) and evil spirits (demons). Satan then is the chief of the evil spirits. As to the whole "angel who rebelled and was cast out of heaven" story - I neither believe that nor disbelieve it. I don't say that it is true, but I don't say that it is false either.

Why do you believe that "Satan" specifically is the chief of evil spirits? Why do you think the evil spirits need a chief? I'm not asking because I disagree, but I find it curious that you're willing to believe in some Christian concepts about Satan, but are unsure about others.

[ZackMartin]

Scholars generally believe that the reason there were no Christian pilgrimages is because there was no body. So, this is usually cited as evidence for the empty tomb.

And yet, centuries later, there was still no body, and yet there were pilgrimages. And there's still no body today, but there are many pilgrimages. So that reason doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Since most scholars are agreed that the passage you're referring to, 1 Corinthians15:3-7, is an early creed, it makes plenty of sense that this would not include the witness of women. Again female testimony was usually considered suspect, it doesn't make good material for a popular creed, especially if the goal is evangelism. We only find it in the Gospel accounts because the Gospels are an attempt to offer a more thorough account of Christ's ministry and resurrection...

They may well be right. But I doubt anyone really knows.

I'm just offering the opinion of those trained in Biblical criticism. You're free to doubt.

I think the biggest problem with professional scholars, is their professional self-interest is to believe that we can know more than maybe we really can, and that we can know things with a greater certainty than we really can. Liberals accuse conservative scholars of bias and conservatives accuse liberal scholars of bias, but I think this is one bias (we might call it a "gnostic" bias - gnostic with a little-g, of course) of which I suspect both conservative and liberal scholars are equally guilty.

I'm not saying we can know nothing - I just think they overestimate significantly the amount we can know. I think we can know that Jesus more likely than not existed, was a 1st century Jewish religious teacher, probably was a follower of John the Baptist, was crucified by some combination of the Jewish and Roman authorities, his followers genuinely and honestly believed he rose from the dead, his followers evolved over time into Christianity we know today, and at least some of the teachings and traditions of later Christianity are based on his teaching during his life - but it is difficult to say with much precision exactly what is his original teaching, and what evolved later. He probably did exorcisms and healings; there probably was some apocalyptic aspect to his teachings, even including some apocalyptic role for him personally. That is about all I believe we can really know; I think claims that we can know anything much more than this are likely to be guesswork and speculation.

Well, but scholars do believe they know. And I'm not talking Christian scholars, I'm talking the majority of scholars across the board believe the tomb was likely empty. So, you're swimming up stream against the consensus there. I mean, again, you're free to do so, but just letting you know.

I'm not an expert at particle physics, but I'm willing to defer to the consensus of experts at particle physicists, because I know enough about how their research to know that they aren't clutching at straws. Given what I know about how biblical scholars operate, I get the impression they very often are clutching at straws (trying to infer more conclusions than the actual evidence can really support), so I show their consensus less deference.

It doesn't sound like you're very well read on the subject. I'd recommend NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God if you're interested.

I've read a reasonable amount on the subject - certainly more than average Joe - but not certainly not everything there is to read either. However, no one in life has the time to become an expert on everything or read every book there is. I will consider reading the book you mentioned, and probably will one of these days, but probably will not be in the near future.

Why do you believe that "Satan" specifically is the chief of evil spirits? Why do you think the evil spirits need a chief? I'm not asking because I disagree, but I find it curious that you're willing to believe in some Christian concepts about Satan, but are unsure about others.

I don't think "evil spirits having a chief" is an exclusively Christian concept. Parallels can be found in several other religious traditions - Platonism/Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism. At least some of these parallels are historically linked to Christianity (either they were influenced by the Christian idea, or they influenced the Christian idea), but I wouldn't say they all were. And all these traditions have somewhat different ideas than the Christian Satan, but the "chief of evil spirits" idea is still there despite the differences. For human beings, once the belief of evil spirits arises (a belief found across numerous cultures), it isn't a great jump to believe that the evil spirits are organised in some form of hierarchy, with some kind of leader - often the development of that idea corresponds with the development of earthly governments - as earthly governance gets more complex as civilisation develops, people naturally see heavenly and hellish governance becoming more complex also.

So for me, the fact that it is not exclusively to Christianity, but is a broader trans-cultural and trans-religious belief (not universal to all cultures or religions, but common to several, and that commonality might not be purely explainable by inter-cultural contact) suggests to me the belief has some validity. Anyway, I have no objection to taking ideas from Christianity - or any other religion - when I believe they are correct.

A lot of liberal Christians downplay the reality and the personality of Satan. I used to think like that too - "maybe God exists, but surely Satan is just a symbol". However, I've turned against that viewpoint. A lot of it seems to be based primarily on this dislike of a notion of a "personal Satan", and I'm not sure that dislike is very well-founded. A lot of it seems to be a reaction to "fire and brimstone" style preaching. But that approach is based on a lot more than just belief in Satan, and you can reject that approach without rejecting a literal Satan. Some of it is also a reaction to exorcisms, which in some cases have been associated with the abuse and death of people, who quite possibly weren't "possessed" at all. I think historically many cases of epilepsy or mental illness have been confused with demonic possession. However, I don't tend to believe schizophrenics, etc., are possessed (even if some of them are convinced they are.) In my view, the possessed often seem mostly sane, just evil. People like Gary Ridgeway, Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann, Jeffrey Dahmer, Rudolf Höss, Josef Mengele, etc. Belief that Hitler was demon-possessed seems reasonably common. I've heard that people who have endorsed the view include Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson, Alice Bailey and Benjamin Creme (imagine putting those four in a room, it would be interesting). It is said that Pope Pius XII repeatedly tried to exorcise him remotely but it never worked.

I should add though my idea of Satan is not purely personal, but neither is it purely impersonal. I believe in a halfway house between personality and impersonality, and I believe that is where angels and demons fit in (including Satan). So I think angels and demons are personal, but not fully personal in the sense that humans, God, and at least some animals, are personal.

[KingsGambit]

So for me, the fact that it is not exclusively to Christianity, but is a broader trans-cultural and trans-religious belief (not universal to all cultures or religions, but common to several, and that commonality might not be purely explainable by inter-cultural contact) suggests to me the belief has some validity. Anyway, I have no objection to taking ideas from Christianity - or any other religion - when I believe they are correct.

If you don't mind me jumping in here briefly.. I was curious if something similar to this is the basis for your belief in the afterlife, specifically, hell (I saw you allude briefly to this on another thread awhile back, within the context of speculating that Jim Jones was there, if I recall correctly). Some form of hell does seem to appear in different cultural forms - is this at least partially the basis for this? (Obviously, this can't directly parallel the demon issue, as there is of course no way of knowing details of the afterlife apart from divine revelation, as I would not regard claims of people who claim to have been to hell and back as credible sources to go on).

[Adrift]

And yet, centuries later, there was still no body, and yet there were pilgrimages. And there's still no body today, but there are many pilgrimages. So that reason doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In ancient Israel, it was common for popular rabbis with strong followings to have their tombs venerated. Its the lack of this early on by his Jewish followers that scholars find as one in a number of facts that is good evidence for the empty tomb. Pilgrimages were not common till centuries later by gentile followers.

They may well be right. But I doubt anyone really knows.

Sure, history is an inexact science, but using the historical method we can reconstruct the past with some confidence.

I think the biggest problem with professional scholars, is their professional self-interest is to believe that we can know more than maybe we really can, and that we can know things with a greater certainty than we really can. Liberals accuse conservative scholars of bias and conservatives accuse liberal scholars of bias, but I think this is one bias (we might call it a "gnostic" bias - gnostic with a little-g, of course) of which I suspect both conservative and liberal scholars are equally guilty.

So... you have an issue with historians altogether then. Hmm. Ok.

I'm not saying we can know nothing - I just think they overestimate significantly the amount we can know. I think we can know that Jesus more likely than not existed, was a 1st century Jewish religious teacher, probably was a follower of John the Baptist, was crucified by some combination of the Jewish and Roman authorities, his followers genuinely and honestly believed he rose from the dead, his followers evolved over time into Christianity we know today, and at least some of the teachings and traditions of later Christianity are based on his teaching during his life - but it is difficult to say with much precision exactly what is his original teaching, and what evolved later. He probably did exorcisms and healings; there probably was some apocalyptic aspect to his teachings, even including some apocalyptic role for him personally. That is about all I believe we can really know; I think claims that we can know anything much more than this are likely to be guesswork and speculation.

While I agree that many reconstructions are based on at least some speculation, it doesn't sound like you're very knowledgeable about literary criticism and how these reconstructions are not mere guess work.

I'm not an expert at particle physics, but I'm willing to defer to the consensus of experts at particle physicists, because I know enough about how their research to know that they aren't clutching at straws. Given what I know about how biblical scholars operate, I get the impression they very often are clutching at straws (trying to infer more conclusions than the actual evidence can really support), so I show their consensus less deference.

I see.

I've read a reasonable amount on the subject - certainly more than average Joe - but not certainly not everything there is to read either. However, no one in life has the time to become an expert on everything or read every book there is. I will consider reading the book you mentioned, and probably will one of these days, but probably will not be in the near future.

Ok.

I don't think "evil spirits having a chief" is an exclusively Christian concept. Parallels can be found in several other religious traditions - Platonism/Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism. At least some of these parallels are historically linked to Christianity (either they were influenced by the Christian idea, or they influenced the Christian idea), but I wouldn't say they all were. And all these traditions have somewhat different ideas than the Christian Satan, but the "chief of evil spirits" idea is still there despite the differences. For human beings, once the belief of evil spirits arises (a belief found across numerous cultures), it isn't a great jump to believe that the evil spirits are organised in some form of hierarchy, with some kind of leader - often the development of that idea corresponds with the development of earthly governments - as earthly governance gets more complex as civilisation develops, people naturally see heavenly and hellish governance becoming more complex also.

So its not that you really think that "Satan" is the name of this chief of demons, you're just using that name as a catch all, correct?

So for me, the fact that it is not exclusively to Christianity, but is a broader trans-cultural and trans-religious belief (not universal to all cultures or religions, but common to several, and that commonality might not be purely explainable by inter-cultural contact) suggests to me the belief has some validity. Anyway, I have no objection to taking ideas from Christianity - or any other religion - when I believe they are correct.

I see.

A lot of liberal Christians downplay the reality and the personality of Satan. I used to think like that too - "maybe God exists, but surely Satan is just a symbol". However, I've turned against that viewpoint. A lot of it seems to be based primarily on this dislike of a notion of a "personal Satan", and I'm not sure that dislike is very well-founded. A lot of it seems to be a reaction to "fire and brimstone" style preaching. But that approach is based on a lot more than just belief in Satan, and you can reject that approach without rejecting a literal Satan. Some of it is also a reaction to exorcisms, which in some cases have been associated with the abuse and death of people, who quite possibly weren't "possessed" at all. I think historically many cases of epilepsy or mental illness have been confused with demonic possession. However, I don't tend to believe schizophrenics, etc., are possessed (even if some of them are convinced they are.) In my view, the possessed often seem mostly sane, just evil. People like Gary Ridgeway, Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann, Jeffrey Dahmer, Rudolf Höss, Josef Mengele, etc. Belief that Hitler was demon-possessed seems reasonably common. I've heard that people who have endorsed the view include Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson, Alice Bailey and Benjamin Creme (imagine putting those four in a room, it would be interesting). It is said that Pope Pius XII repeatedly tried to exorcise him remotely but it never worked.

Hmm.

I should add though my idea of Satan is not purely personal, but neither is it purely impersonal. I believe in a halfway house between personality and impersonality, and I believe that is where angels and demons fit in (including Satan). So I think angels and demons are personal, but not fully personal in the sense that humans, God, and at least some animals, are personal.

Ok, thank you for taking the time to answer.

[ZackMartin]

In ancient Israel, it was common for popular rabbis with strong followings to have their tombs venerated. Its the lack of this early on by his Jewish followers that scholars find as one in a number of facts that is good evidence for the empty tomb. Pilgrimages were not common till centuries later by gentile followers.

It's also good evidence for not knowing where the tomb is. No one really knows.

Sure, history is an inexact science, but using the historical method we can reconstruct the past with some confidence.

How much confidence is "some confidence"? I'm not saying we can know nothing, but I think people often overestimate the amount that can actually be reconstructed.

So... you have an issue with historians altogether then. Hmm. Ok.

I'm a moderate historical sceptic. I think compared to modern history, ancient historians often deal with such limited evidence, and are so eager to get knowledge out of this evidence, that often they get ahead of themselves, and reach conclusions which aren't really justified given the limitations of our knowledge, and ascribe to their conclusions more confidence than they really should.

While I agree that many reconstructions are based on at least some speculation, it doesn't sound like you're very knowledgeable about literary criticism and how these reconstructions are not mere guess work.

I think I'm more knowledgeable than you think I am. I'm familiar for example with the "criterion of dissimilarity". I just think it is so vague, ambiguous, ill-defined and slippery, as to not be very useful in practice.

So its not that you really think that "Satan" is the name of this chief of demons, you're just using that name as a catch all, correct?

"ha satan" is just Hebrew for "the adversary", and as such is a pretty descriptive name for the chief of the evil spirits.

[ZackMartin]

If you don't mind me jumping in here briefly.. I was curious if something similar to this is the basis for your belief in the afterlife, specifically, hell (I saw you allude briefly to this on another thread awhile back, within the context of speculating that Jim Jones was there, if I recall correctly). Some form of hell does seem to appear in different cultural forms - is this at least partially the basis for this? (Obviously, this can't directly parallel the demon issue, as there is of course no way of knowing details of the afterlife apart from divine revelation, as I would not regard claims of people who claim to have been to hell and back as credible sources to go on).

Sure, I think that is at least one reason. If something exists across multiple cultures, that makes me think it is more likely that there is something to it. It's no guarantee - a mistaken idea could be very common, the right idea could be very occasional. But I think, as a suggestive rather than conclusive reason, it is relevant.

For me, the primary reason for hell is this: God wants to heal the division between all his children. But suppose God was to introduce Otto Frank (father of Anne Frank) to Adolf Hitler. How do you think Otto Frank would feel? "Your regime killed me whole family, and millions more of my people - how am I supposed to heal divisions with you?" And yet, suppose Hitler could be made to experience first hand, in its fullness, the suffering of his victims. Not by creating some new alike sufferings for him to suffer - that would be "too wrongs make a right", "an eye for an eye", etc. But by giving him the exact same sufferings to suffer. Imagine God has a kind of heavenly VCR, which records all your sensations, of the five senses, and even feelings and thoughts, and then plays them back to someone fully immersively, as if they were actually experiencing them. So God has recorded all the sufferings of Hitler's victims, and could be even playing them back to Hitler as we speak - this is hell for Hitler. And, at the end of his hell, knowing this is what he has endured - will his victims be ready to make peace with him? I'm not sure if this by itself will be entirely enough, but I do think it will make a great difference.

[Adrift]

"ha satan" is just Hebrew for "the adversary", and as such is a pretty descriptive name for the chief of the evil spirits.

So it doesn't concern you that in early Judaism, ha satan doesn't seem to be the chief of anything?

[ZackMartin]

So it doesn't concern you that in early Judaism, ha satan doesn't seem to be the chief of anything?

I'm not convinced that is a correct statement of the role of ha satan in early Judaism.

[Adrift]

I'm not convinced that is a correct statement of the role of ha satan in early Judaism.

What's your doubt based on exactly? I may be mistaken, but its not till we get to the intertestamental period that we see Satan taking on the characteristics of a leader of demons (1 Enoch for example), correct? I guess I'm just trying to figure out where you derive your beliefs... whether its based on research of ancient texts, an internal witness of some sort, or something else.

[shunyadragon]

What's your doubt based on exactly? I may be mistaken, but its not till we get to the intertestamental period that we see Satan taking on the characteristics of a leader of demons (1 Enoch for example), correct? I guess I'm just trying to figure out where you derive your beliefs... whether its based on research of ancient texts, an internal witness of some sort, or something else.

Just a comment on the 'empty tomb' in the gospels. Yes, on an assessment of the evidence and commentary by scholars over the years, there likely was, but not necessarily an 'empty tomb,' but like Vermes and some other scholars the conclusions explaining the 'empty tomb' can possibly have other explanations than the the Resurrection.

Zak's skepticism does not mean much to me either way.

[Adrift]

Just a comment on the 'empty tomb' in the gospels. Yes, on an assessment of the evidence and commentary by scholars over the years, there likely was, but not necessarily an 'empty tomb,' but like Vermes and some other scholars the conclusions explaining the 'empty tomb' can possibly have other explanations than the the Resurrection.

Who said otherwise?

Zak's skepticism does not mean much to me either way.

Not to be rude, but no asked you.