How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Drich]

Not my theory as I made plain.

For the purpose of this discussion it is your theory as you are repersenting it, and two Tom's theory deals with Horus, yours deals with orsiris.

However, Tom Harpur, one-time professor of New Testament Greek at Wycliffe College, sees the Jesus-figure of the gospels as a retelling of the archetype embodied in the Horus myth of ancient Egypt.

Even this is exaggerated and overstated.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html

Perhaps. However, I start from the premise that Yeshua was a historical figure, an itinerant rabbi with considerable rhetorical prowess, who got himself crucified by the Romans and remained dead.

Do you have proof, or are we to simply take your beliefs on faith as you do?

I don't need to prove that he was a historical figure since that is accepted by those who would oppose my theory. Cognitive dissonance is a theory which is intended to explain the data.

Actually this is exactly where your theory fails. In order for your theory to work you must be able to demonstrate that people who lived 2000 years ago in a different culture, processed 'cognitive dissonance' the same way modern western soceity does. You simply assume that everyone who has ever lived processes emotion as this culture in this time does. I pointed out that even people of other cultures living in this time do not process grief, dread, frustration, guilt or any of the other emotions that contribute to the dis-equaliubrim, needed to trigger 'cognitive dissonance' you have tried to force onto this culture.

We have never seen a re-animated corpse but there were stories of such not just in the NT but attributed to pagan miracle workers like Apollonius of Tyana. We do know from experience that people often begin by denying the death of a loved one. We do not know from experience that corpses come back to life. Therefore my theory is inherently more probable than yours.

Your wrong here again. Because one more time you do not even know that the acceptance of death was the issue you are making it out to be. They live in a culture of death, the soceity as a whole embraced it, it was not something that needed to be feared.. At least not till the first hell fire and brimstone sermon.

People go on making up stories to support a position they have taken. Person A says Jesus returned to life. Person B says the disciples probably stole the body. Person A then comes up with a cock-and-bull story that it couldn't have happened because a guard was posted to prevent that very thing. Mind you, I don't even think the disciples actually stole the body. The story just got started that Jesus was alive as with the stories about Elvis or Amelia Earhart.

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.

29 “Soon after the trouble of those days, the sun will grow dark, the moon will no longer shine, the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers in space will be driven from their courses. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky; and all the peoples of earth will weep as they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 The great trumpet will sound, and he will send out his angels to the four corners of the earth, and they will gather his chosen people from one end of the world to the other. 32 “Let the fig tree teach you a lesson. When its branches become green and tender and it starts putting out leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 In the same way, when you see all these things, you will know that the time is near, ready to begin. 34 [i]Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died.[/i] 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

I see you found a translation to support your position. So lets look at the Greek in verse 34:Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
The word here for generation is: genea It can mean generation as we understand the word to mean but defination 2 says it also can mean a whole people.. As in the Jews (all of them.)

That means Christ was saying that the Jewish people will not pass away till these things come to pass.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...1074&t=KJV

Sounds like a definite prophecy of the end of the world within that generation.

Indeed it does, it's just that one has to understand the bible was written in Koine Greek and the the king james english, and when they seek a bible translation it must be a translation from the Koine Greek and not an easy to read version of the king james english if they are to use that version to support a proper exegesis of scripture.

And what makes you an expert on the grief process in other cultures?

I grew up in a house hold that strattled two very different cultures, and I saw the importance my dads culture (western soceity) placed on stupid things, and took great offence when stupid things like their version of 'table manners' were not observed. Or the members of my mom's family took great offense when one did not observe their trivial traditions like take off ones shoes when you entered the house. I also watched how my grand parents died on both sides and while both funerals were held here, there were two totally different experiences. one was what you would expect to see while the others made the 'americans' feel uncomfortable and even offended in some aspects.

I have read lots of ancient literature and the elegy grieving the loss of a loved person is a common form.

Then I do not need to explain to you that grief was indeed felt, but death for the devoute jew was not an end of the world event as it is now in this culture.

What do gladitorial combats have to do with it?

Don't be thick. It means that, their whole soceity did not view death as we do. That blood lust was the norm and even though slaves, and prisioners were apart of those who died. There were a whole class of men who fought and died for the prestege and honor it brought. This mind set in a soceity should tell any common sense having person that 'death' was not feared in that soceity as it is in this one.
Rome slaugtered everyone and everything, to us there is no greater crime. To them it was life, and death. This fact changes the nature of the need for 'cognitive dissonance' on the scale we are talking to trigger a religion that would last 2000 years.

Yes, crowds of people would enjoy the sadism, and I have no doubt the parents or spouse or children of a slain gladiator would grieve for him. If we do not have a common humanity, your theory of Jesus' dying for our sins has no meaning.

Moving the goal posts. You were not talking about simple grief. You were talking the level of grief that inspired 12 men to start a whole religion. What gladiator has a 2000 year old following?

I did not say that the later converts believed because of denial in the grief process. That, I suppose, happened with Jesus' followers. There are plenty of examples to show that once a person has adopted a delusional belief, he will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain that belief. So you had sincere believers preaching the resurrected Christ to the local population, need I add yet again, in what was a totally credulous era.

Your missing the bigger point. The Jews (per the crusification of Christ) had the power of life and death in their hands. They could kill people in the most terriable way possiable, all they needed was a reason. Heresy was such a reason. With this power why didn't they have the deciples killed if they thought them to be blasphomous heritics? Just like they did with Christ, UNLESS they were witnessed to the claims of the post resurection bible themselves?

They had to endure or witness something to cause them to at least stop and reevaluate their MO. Because again they killed Christ for far less than what they let the Apstoles get away with.