How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Drich]

I meant to get back to this post, but some minor surgery intervened.

I hope all is well.

If we accepted your argument, it would prove a hell of a lot more than you wanted it to. If there was a "culture of death" and no one feared death, why would anyone give a damn about a resurrection and a promise of everlasting life?

As many of your peers have pointed out ever lasting life in of itself or in a context not sought after by the one seeking it is a kin to a prision sentence, one that lasts forever. What makes or should make everlasting life appealing to the 1st century man as well as modern man is the fact we get to spend it with God. This fact would entice the believer to the point of a general willingness to give up his/her life for the sake of their faith. Which was done many times over from that time till this. If life or the preservation of life itself was the comodity, then there would be far fewer martyrs for the Church.

You claim to be a pastor, but you do not seem to know of all of the things that happened between the death of Christ and the establishment of the Church. There were some very tall hurrdles that were cleared inorder for Christianity to become a religion.

I do not claim to be a pastor. I most assuredly was a pastor, but I quit almost 30 years ago.

Maybe you don't understand the word claim or how it is being used here in this context. It is not to envoke an emotional response, but to highlight defination 3a from merrium webster's dictionary: " to assert in the face of possible contradiction"

You said you were a preacher I provided a statement that questions that because what you said does not seem to take into account the scripture I refernced. I was looking for a scriptural rebuttal.

Drich, it's quite amusing. I was a pastor in a church which upheld biblical inerrancy.

I do not say the bible is flawless. i simply pointed out your misunderstanding of the word 'generation' and how it was used in that passage.

I once put myself through all the mental contortions you engage in, so I know exactly what you are going to say on any point that calls in question the accuracy of the bible.

There is no 'mental contortion' here. I simply looked up the orginal greek word used in the passage. It has various meaning. I chose the one consistant with the context of the passage in which it was found.

The bible was not written in english, so how foolish is it to only look at the english and take it only at face value?

I remember going through this argument even before I was a pastor. I thought that the translation I used here might be some liberal attempt to devalue scripture. Sound familiar? Yes, it is true that the Greek genea occasionally means all those born of a common ancestor. However, the most common meaning is that used in the Good News Translation: all the people living at the same time. You obviously did not read the authority you cite because in fact it assigns the third meaning (the whole multitude of men living at the same time) to that very verse, Matthew 24:34.

Actually I did. I simply do not agree because the defination does not fit the context.

Long ago like you I clutched at the straw that it should mean race, the world will not end as long as the Jewish race exists, and I read exegetes blathering on about how remarkable it was that the Jewish people had survived. It doesn't work for two reasons. 1. The context calls for a clear time reference These things will happen before this generation dies. Nothing clear about when a nation will die.

And a clear time reference is given in that the son of man will return before the Jewish people all die out.

So why doesn't your understanding work? Because that generation died and Christ did not return. However within the defination of Genea the word can also mean a whole people. Now place that into historical context and the passage still reads true. Which means that any commentary that say the genea means a 'generation' as we understand the word is in error because History does not support this understanding or defination.

2. There is nothing remarkable about the survival of the Jewish people. There are lots of nations still in existence which are just as old: The Greeks are still a people and speak what is recognizably the same language as they used in the time of Homer. The Chinese have lasted even longer.

What people have survived without a country for almost 2000 years?

Mark 9:1 says the Kingdom of God will come before some of those standing here have died.

The Kingdom came in acts 2 with the our pouring of the Holy Spirit.

He also tells the disciples, "I assure you that you will not finish your work in all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

Read the whole chapter. It says nothing about a second comming, Christ at that point in His ministry (Just after anointing the 12 apstoles.)Christ Is not speaking of a second comming He is speaking about the hard times a head as a direct follower/Apstole of Christ.

What on earth are you trying to say? Are you related to that little old lady? The one who supposedly told the pastor he shouldn't use the modern translation because "if the King James version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." The Good News Bible is a translation from the Hebrew and the Greek, not a modern paraphrase. You are more likely to find slanted paraphrases in fundamentalist-friendly versions like The Living Bible (aka The Way) or the "translations" of the New International Version. Are you unaware that the King James version is based on a very poor Greek text of the New Testament? Even the most rigid fundamentalists would tell you that.

I am not trying to sell one bible over another. I am saying that whether you use a KJV or whatever translation that tickles your fancy, bottom line is your not reading the orginal language in which the bible was written. To take it only at face value is a mistake.