(August 2, 2017 at 9:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I've bent over backwards to give as much credence and benefit of the doubt as is consistent with reasonable skepticism to the possibility of there being anything at all to the resurrection story. In the process, I've been accused of 'adding' to the story by pointing out that to people of the time there would be no practical difference between an apparent resurrection and an actual one.
But is it even in the earliest copies of the gospels? IIRC, Mark is the earliest (and shortest) Gospel, and it doesn't mention Jesus being born of a virgin or walking around after being crucified. That stuff appeared in later Gospels, which is very suggestive of fantastic additions to the account creeping in as the story was retold.
Probably relevant to point out at this time is that really is no "resurrection story." There is an empty tomb story and a lot of "He Is Risen" horseshit but there is only one, the Gospel of Peter, which claims to have "jesus" walking out of the tomb.
Quote: And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'
But it wasn't bounced out of the NT because of the walking-talking fucking cross bullshit. They decided it wasn't really written by "peter." As if any of it were written by the people claimed!
