Excavating The Empty Tomb

[The Grand Nudger]

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are there in either case (and are crucial to establishing the theology contained therein that - even if this were a historical document- is clearly much more important).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?

[Drich]

For a person who claims to be representing "biblical christianity" you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of what is contained therein Drich......why ask atheists for chapters and verses - aren't you supposed to be the bible monkey here?

Maybe because they dont exist princess.

I'll be honest with you, I kind of operate on the assumption that you're not a complete douche - that you actually have read your holy book...and that when we discuss your holy book I won't have to tell you what's in it....

-Maybe asking for book Chapter and verse is me telling you that no such verse exists.. Or maybe it me trying to find out what verse you have twisted up to create the doctrine your trying to argue, so I can untangle it for you.

I don't know about Min, but I'm not really in the habit of quoting the bible. I like to keep our forum floor clear of rubble.

Well, when you or someone your arguing for says the bible says_______. Do be supprised when someone who knows that it doesnt asks you to provide the ________ you claim it does.

[The Grand Nudger]

So Odysseus fed 5000 with 2 fish and 5 loaves? Maybe if you could tell me what post you were orginally refering to.

I ended my last post with a question that you answered while I was penning it. You're clearly not following, and are either incapable of or unwilling to have this discussion.

Maybe because they dont exist princess.

Maybe asking for book Chapter and verse is me telling you that no such verse exists.. Or maybe it me trying to find out what verse you have twisted up to create the doctrine your trying to argue, so I can untangle it for you.

You can remove, add, or ignore whatever you wish from your ghost stories - so that they say whatever you wish for them to say. Why do you think this would bother me in the least?

Well, when you or someone your arguing for says the bible says_______. Do be supprised when someone who knows that it doesnt asks you to provide the ________ you claim it does.

Except that we aren't having an argument about what the bible says Drich. I've had occasion to tell people this before so I guess I can rehash that now - whatever you feel the bible is saying to you is your own personal business. We take these stories how we like them. What we are discussing here is literature -discussing, mind you, and not arguing - as you haven't offered anything to argue about. If you don't feel that the author was engaging in a particular tradition, or that the specific representative of that tradition in question is the strongest candidate for that influence...offer up another, or explain why. Constantly repeating some mantra about how one story has fish in it and the other is about cheese - as if you were trying to cast a spell- is not even remotely beginning to engage in this discussion.

[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?

[little_monkey]

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?

Not good.

Once a religion becomes the dominant force, like christianity did since 1500 years ago, it tends to suppress any contrarian views.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

I'm as ready as ever to be disappointed again.

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)

A literary tradition, similar motif and other devices-keep up.

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..

"People" did notice. "People" continue to notice. Clearly -you- didn't notice...but I don't know (at this point) if that's because you haven't read the bible - or because you haven't read some other piece of literature that is representative of the same tradition...not that this has anything to do with what we're discussing, but hey, I'm trying to be generous.

How am I doing so far?

see above.

I swear to christ I'm gonna leave you with a better appreciation of your own stories come hell or high water......it's my new forum mission.

[Cyberman]

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.

What monkey and Rhythm said, plus this:

Even if what you said was the way it happened, why do you find it so surprising? That sort of thing happens all the time. Here's just a few similar examples of what might be termed repackaged popular culture just from the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of many more:

Star Wars - Hidden Fortress, plus no end of "Hero's Journey" stories
A Fistful of Dollars - Kurosawa's Yojimbo
Ulysses 31 (anyone remember this?) - Homer's Odyssey
The Lion King - Hamlet
Lion King 2 - Romeo & Juliet
Anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber - anything by just about every classical composer for the past few centuries

I think that, rather than simply selling this stuff to the people and hoping nobody notices, there's a healthy amount of redressing the stories to make them, shall we say, more palatable to a contemporary and/or non-native audience going on.

[The Grand Nudger]

In true form, Stimbo, in the narrative I've been trying to use as a vehicle to describe the vehicle used -in- the narrative to Drich...a great deal has been done in that regard. Here we have a jewish god being sold to a gentile audience - he feeds the multitudes (make alot with a little...hey Drich..that mustard seed bit.....yup.) -including those who do not believe

-and still has more "bread" leftover, ostensibly for anyone else who may require it (which is all of us..so sayeth the narrative - in the desert of life).

Doublet, allusion and chorus combine to produce theology - as well as a passable tale for this theology to ride around on. Wonder of wonders.

(and isn;t it amusing to note, that depending on which version of this narrative one prefers - it follows an explanation of the beginning of resistance to "jesus' movement" - John is beheaded..etc..and almost immediately the jesus character makes appeals to a wider audience.)

[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?

Not good.

Once a religion becomes the dominant force, like christianity did since 1500 years ago, it tends to suppress any contrarian views.

Wasn't the assertion that Mark took ques from Odyesseus to write about Christ, and as Mark was the First of the Gospel writters the other 3 just copied what he wrote? This did not Happen 1500 years ago. This happened between 50 to 70 years after the events took place. The Gospel writtings would have been contested and Christianity shutdown long before it became a force 1500 years ago. The Jews, the Greeks, The Romans all were looking for a way to stop Christianity. Again is it your belief that none of these people saw what the mockumentry guy spoke of? Seriously, If it was Soooo obvious that Jesus was an Oddyeus copy then why did so many die in a time where the exploits of Oddyeus were fresh on peoples minds?? That would be like someone claiming that "O' brother, where art thou" was an orginal story and not based on "the oddessy." Or west side story was not a retelling of Romeo and Juliet.. To the point people would line up to die to say that either one was an orginal story.

Just because people then did not enjoy the Mod/Cons you have now does not mean they were stupid.

---

In true form, Stimbo, in the narrative I've been trying to use as a vehicle to describe the vehicle used -in- the narrative to Drich...a great deal has been done in that regard. Here we have a jewish god being sold to a gentile audience - he feeds the multitudes (make alot with a little...hey Drich..that mustard seed bit.....yup.) -including those who do not believe

-and still has more "bread" leftover, ostensibly for anyone else who may require it (which is all of us..so sayeth the narrative - in the desert of life).

Doublet, allusion and chorus combine to produce theology - as well as a passable tale for this theology to ride around on. Wonder of wonders.

(and isn;t it amusing to note, that depending on which version of this narrative one prefers - it follows an explanation of the beginning of resistance to "jesus' movement" - John is beheaded..etc..and almost immediately the jesus character makes appeals to a wider audience.)

FINALLY! a commitment. Now Show me a link to Homers orginal work that Odyesseus doing this!

---

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.

What monkey and Rhythm said, plus this:

Even if what you said was the way it happened, why do you find it so surprising? That sort of thing happens all the time. Here's just a few similar examples of what might be termed repackaged popular culture just from the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of many more:

Star Wars - Hidden Fortress, plus no end of "Hero's Journey" stories
A Fistful of Dollars - Kurosawa's Yojimbo
Ulysses 31 (anyone remember this?) - Homer's Odyssey
The Lion King - Hamlet
Lion King 2 - Romeo & Juliet
Anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber - anything by just about every classical composer for the past few centuries

I think that, rather than simply selling this stuff to the people and hoping nobody notices, there's a healthy amount of redressing the stories to make them, shall we say, more palatable to a contemporary and/or non-native audience going on.

As I pointed out earilier. How many would die to state that the Lion King was an orginal work? How many before someone would point out it was a rework of Hamlet? How many would die after that revelation?

[The Grand Nudger]

FINALLY! a commitment. Now Show me a link to Homers orginal work that Odyesseus doing this!

Finally? You realize that this is just me repeating myself don't you? Yet again you swing and miss - for precisely the same reasons as you have in every response, reasons that have already been explained to you (and had been explained to you from the very first post I entered into this conversation with). If you want to have this discussion with me..rather than the discussion you're having with the man in your head.....you're going to have to at least make the attempt.

What's on the table is the use of doublet, allusion, and chorus. Not loaves and fucking fishes ..... In the absence of these -litarary devices- there is no theology in the narrative. Understand?