How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[xpastor]

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

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.

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?

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.

I do not claim to be a pastor. I most assuredly was a pastor, but I quit almost 30 years ago. I still know what was written in Acts and the rest of the New Testament at least as well as you do. I just don't believe it anymore.

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

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

Besides all that there are other NT passages which make it perfectly plain that Jesus predicted the end of the world (the Son of Man coming in power) would occur within his own generation. Mark 9:1 says the Kingdom of God will come before some of those standing here have died. 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)

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.

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.

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?

No, I was not talking about simple grief originally although I veered into that topic to counter your absurd claim that people in that era did not feel grief. I was originally talking about the cognitive dissonance which occurred because the disciples believed intensely that Jesus would bring in a new age (redeem Israel) but he had been killed without that happening. As I have amply demonstrated, religious sects often go into denial when their expectations are falsified by the facts.

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.

Duh. You seem to have forgotten that Acts tells the story of the martyrdom of Stephen and says that Paul, with the authority of the high priest, was arresting Christians.