Excavating The Empty Tomb

[Drich]

Hades originally meant "trash heap".

Uh, no.
There were 3 words in the bible that translate to the word Hell in english.

geenna Which is your trash heap. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...1067&t=KJV

Hades Which in biblical terms means place of the Dead, the grave, Hell.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...=G86&t=KJV

tartaroō The Greek Version of Geenna.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...5020&t=KJV

Then in the OT the Jews had Sheol which is the Jew version of Hades. (place of the Dead.)

But still does not change that if we are talking about a real place, which amounts to a trash can, those who do not kiss your fictional characters ass will be treated like trash.

You keep moving the goal posts when the real issue is hell is not real and it is still immoral to treat others like trash merely because they don't want to kiss your ass.

You are going to feel a lot better once you realize you don't have to defend that vile book.

So what you are justifying without realizing is a dictator. PERIOD. I am not trash, and hell even if a real place and not simply a "trash heap", is not a form of corrective punishment, it is tyrannical revenge.

So literal or metaphorical it is still a vile claim and totally morally bankrupt. It is mental slavery and the same attitude is used by dictators, mafia bosses and abusive spouses.

I am not property that someone can drag into a mansion(heaven) or be bribed into that mansion. Nor am I trash to be thrown into a fire or into a trash can.

If you want to mentally abuse yourself with that garbage, we cant stop you, but we are not fooled and we are not objects or pawns in your game of myth.

Do you want to restate this inlight of the proper definations, or do you want me to have a go at what you wrote here?

Oh and lets not forget that the Romans were expert census takers I think they'd take notice if someone running a cult went around making all those fantastic claims. But the gospels were written AFTER the fact and any real Romans written into it were done so AFTER THE FACT.

So... It is your belief that 'we' have all of the old roman census forms? ....From the first century?

That would be like me saying Donald Trump exists so therefore I am a billionaire. Even if there was evidence of a man named Jesus the only thing it would prove is that a man managed to start a cult and market that cult. But the Gospels were written after the fact and it is much more likely that the founders of Christianity simply were writing their myth to compete and split from the Jewish traditions. There certainly were founders of Christianity, but regardless, it still does not make the fantastic claims credible, nor does it make that religion the inventor of human morality.

But, this is what all religions do and even in polytheism, humans made bad guesses about the nature of reality, and also claimed divine morality.

Same question as before. Do you want to make a correction in light of what I just said or do you want me to have a go with your statement as stated?[/quote]

---

Continuing-

That the author is clearly familiar with western literary tradition is made apparent by his leveraging it so effectively -regardless of whether the author intends to create a narrative or add flair to some "psuedo-historical" account of an event witnessed by him or told to him. The elements of fiction are there in either case (and are crucial to establishing the theology contained therein that - even if this were a historical document- is clearly much more important). The theology does not arise from a dry retelling of two "miracles" - but through creative and competent use of literary motif. To establish this theology - it is plainly not required that any of these narratives refer to any actual event - but the devices used cannot be removed if we wish to have the theology left intact. The fiction is more important than any fact we might hope the narrative contains.

This is why a comparison between, say, jesus and odysseus (as pertaining to the narrative devices used) is worthwhile. We know that the author(s) of said gospel narratives where aware of the literary tradition that is contained within their narratives - and we might find it interesting to consider which representatives of this tradition influenced those authors most directly.

Still following me Drich?

I think so let me see if all of this is right...

So 2000 years ago (give or take) someone wrote a story that paralelled another story based in, what was popular culture (for the time it was written) and was sold to the very same people of said pop culture, and yet no one noticed. No one for 2000 years noticed, till someone with a desire to make this mock-YOU-mentry noticed what should have been very appearent to any of the major philosphers and anti-theologians of that day..

How am I doing so far?