Excavating The Empty Tomb

[Minimalist]

What Drippy can never understand, apparently, is the concept of literature. The Homeric tales are apparently the oldest example of Western literature and were told/retold and read for centuries. We have no idea of how common Homeric themes were in ancient literature because most of it has been lost by the action of time or deliberate destruction by idiot xtians. Fortunately for the West the islamic revolt against learning came late enough for much to have been transferred before they became fundie assholes, too.

One of the concepts in question here is katabasis and here is a list of just the Greco-Roman heroes who went to Hades.

Adonis/Tammuz is mourned and then recovered by his consort/mother Aphrodite/Inanna/Ishtar
The god Dionysus, to rescue Semele from Hades[3]
Heracles, for his twelfth labor, on which occasion he also rescued Theseus
The god Hermes, to rescue Persephone from Hades
Orpheus, to rescue Eurydice from Hades
Persephone and Demeter
Psyche
Odysseus
Aeneas, to speak to his father in the Aeneid
Theseus and Pirithous try to abduct Persephone; they fail, and only Theseus is rescued by Heracles

The idea is shown in Sumerian and Egyptian literature as well so it far pre-dates Homer.

But Drippy looks at all this and says "but my god is different." No, Drippy, it isn't. It is the same old shit.

[tokutter]

The only thing that is fatally flawed is your silly-assed god story.

Total shit from the word go.

Is this what people are like on this forum? If so, I think I may have made a mistake in coming here. I'm looking for substantive dialogue, not these cheap shot remarks that add nothing to the conversation.

If you give substantive dialogue, you'll get it......If you start doing the christian two step........prepared to get hammered.

[Angrboda]

Now you have crossed the line and are an outright liar, Drippy.

Your godboy does not exist in historical texts except in a few spots where desperate editors tried to retrofit him into the story. It fools no one but the fools.

As always you've missed the point Minnie. I am saying that there is a libary full of historical texts, that identify and verify Christ, but because of the libary's location ALL of those works are dismissed as religious texts. No one outside of the RC chruch has taken the time to pour over each and every one. So you can not say nothing exists that supports a historical Jesus.

So nobody outside the Roman Catholic church has poured over them. Then how do you know what they contain?

---

Ill watch one. upto 15 mins of one. If you want me to address one specific part or one specific movie give me a link and a time index and we will go from there. If you blow off and ignore what I say, then I am not watching any more crap I hate God movies for a while. As they are waists of time.

---

starting with video 1
@2:11 the host states that the resurection is based in our current form/matter/body. When Clearly the bible states in 1 cor 15:42...

---

fSo is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; git is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 kThe first man was from the earth, la man of dust; mthe second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, nso also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just oas we have borne the image of the man of dust, pwe shall6 also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Mystery and Victory

50 I tell you this, brothers: qflesh and blood rcannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. sWe shall not all sleep, tbut we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For uthe trumpet will sound, and vthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality.

---

It's interesting that you should quote 1 Corinthians to dispute that the belief was in a bodily resurrection, when, in the later videos, if you had watched them (somewhere between videos 14 and 18), the video author makes the case that Paul, the author of 1 Corinthians, likely never witnessed a bodily resurrection, but only encountered the resurrected Christ in scripture and prophecy, in dreams, or in visions (possibly brought on by epilepsy). Contrasting the author's later point with his claim that it was the presentation of the idea of a bodily resurrection that caused the crowd in Acts 17 to respond the way they did, rejecting his message, would have made an interesting inconsistency to point out. However a couple of points you and the author are glossing over here. First of all, this is a mixed group of Jews and Greeks that he is speaking to in Acts, and he has been followed from Thessalonica by people who are unhappy with what he's been doing. Moreover, Paul, according to Acts, only refers to Jesus having been "raised from the dead," so it's not clear whether the question of bodily versus spiritual resurrection was even at issue here. Even if the issue were live, quoting things written many years after the fact does nothing to tell us what the actual mood of the time was among the Hellenes, especially describing the mission of someone who himself was likely originally a Pharisee, and may have had conflicting motives with respect to the question of bodily resurrection. And if the video author's case in later videos is valid, you're looking to someone who himself never witnessed the bodily resurrected Christ for information on what it is proper to believe about the event. (And Paul's general disagreement over points of doctrine relative to the apostles is well documented.)

So the Foundation of this dbags arguement is irrepairably cracked, and will not support the rest of his arguement. He has created a strawman dressed it up like the doctrine of the resurrection, and is attacking the strawman. When people like Minnie hear something they been waiting for things like TRUTH take a side burner to unverified facts. Facts that tickle his fancy just in the way he wants it tickled.

If you say so.

@2:50 The host points out that the religious leaders did not believe in the resurection. Then He quotes a question that the Saducees mockingly asked Christ. (as if the idea of the resurection was based in later greek works) Appearently the host does not know or simply failed to mention that the Pharasees did believe in the after life/resurrection, while the Saducces did not. (That is why they are sad-u-cee? This is all sunday school stuff)

Actually, no, he does not. Quoting the video, "Even among the Jews of Jesus' day, there were those who did not believe that the resurrection was even possible," indicating explicitly that he was referring to only a portion of the Jews, and he makes no mention of them being "religious leaders."

The question of bodily resurrection was still an issue even in the second century CE, with the Christian writers Irenaeus and Justin Martyr writing against the idea that only the soul survived. Justin Martyr wrote, "Seeing as ... the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men."

@3:00 He introduces Cellcus and his great body of work.. that has not survived, but the work refuting it did @ 3:30. All to point to a old source that dismisses the concept of resurection in the time of Christ. But again, The fundemental difference between Pharasees and the Sad-U-Cees, was their belief in a after life/resurection.

The fundamental difference which is a point the author never disputed either explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, it's worth noting that the Pharisees were a minority Judaic sect, that advocated holding themselves apart from the pagan Greeks including forbidding intermarriage. Since the author is explicitly referencing the Greek mindset, your point in emphasizing that an isolationist sect of Jews may have believed in the bodily resurrection amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

---

Do I really need to go one and force myself to watch the second one? Or does he just keep building on the cracked strawman foundation he starts out with in the first one?

No, you can stop. You've adequately documented your incompetence, lack of scholarship and general abuse and misuse of sources.

I will tell you, in fairness, however, that I didn't expect a different or more substantive reaction from you. And I don't lay the blame on you as a person. This is simply the way that human psychology is built, and both sides do it, it's not an atheist versus theist thing. The mind is built with standard predispositions, the like of which conspire to reinforce the person's existing beliefs, regardless of the content of the material they are exposed to, whether it be pro or con. The human mind is like a ratchet that can only tighten once it has started with a belief. That's just human nature 101, and your behavior is not in any sense unusual, excluding your own personal touches of course.

So don't be dismayed. Watch the videos, don't watch the videos. Nobody here actually expects you to change your views based on the evidence. That's simply not going to happen.

[Drich]

Sigh, Drich...just sigh, common themes and devices in common narrative styles......your lack of appreciation for literature never fails to leave me unimpressed. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the contention is not that jesus-is-odysseus....or vv......

"But but but, my character has a different name, and the details of my story are different in minutae" No shit Sherlock, different authors different narratives.....

The contention, my uninterested friend, is that the author used a narrative style that would be familiar to his audience (and respected/admired/otherwise positively valued) - mimesis- to convey a dissimilar (in some regards...and not in others) message. That this narrative style is one that we would classify as fiction (intentionally so) leads one to surmise that the narratives message was most likely more important than it's contents - and that the author realized this full well...and never intended it to be anything other than-much like the feeding of the multitudes bit that you so casually shit on in our other thread. Get it now?

This is why you are in lala-land when you imagine yourself to be the triumphant christian warrior valiantly defending the gospel of christ. No one's attacking it. In fact, people are highlighting it's well developed literary style, the education of the author - and it's value as a vehicle for delivering a message that would be so readily available to it's readers. You can talk about the differences of beliefs espoused therein all day long - and you will -not- be discussing the narrative style, the narrative devices, or the common literary "culture" of the audience and their receptiveness to a narrative based on those factors. I get that this is not enough for you, your personal faith demands that this be a dry fucking historical document. Tough titties, because it isn't. Can anyone establish the intent of a long dead author with certainty? Absolutely not. We can, however, compare their styles and draw parallels and dissimilarities. We - of course- being those of us who are actually interested in these stories and their manufacture to begin with.

If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

[Brian37]

Is this what people are like on this forum? If so, I think I may have made a mistake in coming here. I'm looking for substantive dialogue, not these cheap shot remarks that add nothing to the conversation.

If you give substantive dialogue, you'll get it......If you start doing the christian two step........prepared to get hammered.

I really get tired of both theists and atheists that think language and choice of words is offensive, when what should really offend them is their own use of logic and the religious violence that results from human gullibility. That is the really offensive stuff not "your claim is fucking stupid".

Imagine how much more peaceful the world would be if the worst most of us had to worry about is being offended.

I would not call "The earth is not flat you moron" a "cheap shot". I would call it cold water on the face in order to get someone to wake up. Otherwise if we always avoided offending others we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

---

Sigh, Drich...just sigh, common themes and devices in common narrative styles......your lack of appreciation for literature never fails to leave me unimpressed. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the contention is not that jesus-is-odysseus....or vv......

"But but but, my character has a different name, and the details of my story are different in minutae" No shit Sherlock, different authors different narratives.....

The contention, my uninterested friend, is that the author used a narrative style that would be familiar to his audience (and respected/admired/otherwise positively valued) - mimesis- to convey a dissimilar (in some regards...and not in others) message. That this narrative style is one that we would classify as fiction (intentionally so) leads one to surmise that the narratives message was most likely more important than it's contents - and that the author realized this full well...and never intended it to be anything other than-much like the feeding of the multitudes bit that you so casually shit on in our other thread. Get it now?

This is why you are in lala-land when you imagine yourself to be the triumphant christian warrior valiantly defending the gospel of christ. No one's attacking it. In fact, people are highlighting it's well developed literary style, the education of the author - and it's value as a vehicle for delivering a message that would be so readily available to it's readers. You can talk about the differences of beliefs espoused therein all day long - and you will -not- be discussing the narrative style, the narrative devices, or the common literary "culture" of the audience and their receptiveness to a narrative based on those factors. I get that this is not enough for you, your personal faith demands that this be a dry fucking historical document. Tough titties, because it isn't. Can anyone establish the intent of a long dead author with certainty? Absolutely not. We can, however, compare their styles and draw parallels and dissimilarities. We - of course- being those of us who are actually interested in these stories and their manufacture to begin with.

If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

Nice cop out. So you use faith in combo with other things? So, still amounts to dodging that "faith" means nothing and is not a virtue. It is a mental excuse you have inflicted yourself with to ignore reality.

"Faith" is merely pulling shit out of your ass because and clinging to it because it sounds nice. It has never been or ever will be any form of credible quality control. Otherwise if "faith" was valid the sun is a god because the Egyptians had "faith" it was.

"Faith" is nothing more than human ignorance and a childish narcissistic placebo. It challenges nothing and bullies or emotionally blackmails questioners. I am glad humans throughout our evolution dared to reject "faith" we are much better off because of it.

If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

What did you think we were talking about in our feeding of the multitudes posts? We were talking about the use of doublets, foreshadowing,and allusion -specifically in the service of pericope - ....it was lost on you there, it will be lost on you here.


In that narrative, the doublet is probably the strongest example - as we read the second telling of the same tale (the second telling more likely being the authors own upsized version of whatever source he drew from) - we the reader know full well how jesus intends to feed the multitudes - by magic, and so we get to watch his disciples fall on their own swords - and learn from their mistakes as party to a third person omniscient narrators thought stream (which includes a dissolution of temporal frame - we are treated to the future in the first narrative - bare bones..it is then rewound and fleshed out for our viewing pleasure).

To conceive of this as a "just-so" story is to ignore the very real and very apparent skill of the author - and his familiarity with the sorts of literary devices that are part of the larger picture and shared ancestry of "western literature". As a "just-so" story it could have been left at the first - naked narrative. This would not have been a suitable vehicle for the authors message - and so he reaches into his bag of tricks and pulls out the doublet...thus investing the narrative with theology. The characters therein do not say the things that they do for any reason other than that it served the purpose of the author. They -have- to wring their hands and play the chorus (you know..the chorus..that other narrative device so commonly employed by greek writers to highlight some aspect of the narrative - keep the audience involved- make it clear...in no uncertain terms, what they should be thinking about...what question they should be asking themselves - to provide a call/response for the narrator to establish the necessity of their next verse........in short..what the disciples are mostly engaged in the business of as foil to jesus throughout the entirety of your narrative?) otherwise the author cannot keep the story moving forward towards the conclusion he wishes to pen.

In short, the narrative is fictitious, the characters exist and act in accordance with the will of the author - because they have to - so that the author can invest his own narrative with his own message. That the author utilizes the doublet (the retelling of a tale with details emphasized differentially between the two..establishing irony and insider knowledge) - that the author alludes to older tales to establish the cultural continuity of the narrative (makes it available and familiar to the audience), that this narrative is both foreshadowed - and serves to foreshadow the next bit of narrative, shows us that the author was - at the very least, familiar with all of these tools which are common to the literary tradition of the time (and remain common, btw).

As pericope, as a story, this narrative is masterful. As a -just so- we could remove one of the two retellings of the tale..and we'd most likely want to remove the more elbaorate version......but this would remove the source of one of the theological underpinnings which is integral to christianity. IOW, to remove the fiction is to remove a critical part of your belief system. Get it?

[Drich]

What Drippy can never understand, apparently, is the concept of literature. The Homeric tales are apparently the oldest example of Western literature and were told/retold and read for centuries. We have no idea of how common Homeric themes were in ancient literature because most of it has been lost by the action of time or deliberate destruction by idiot xtians. Fortunately for the West the islamic revolt against learning came late enough for much to have been transferred before they became fundie assholes, too.

One of the concepts in question here is katabasis and here is a list of just the Greco-Roman heroes who went to Hades.

Adonis/Tammuz is mourned and then recovered by his consort/mother Aphrodite/Inanna/Ishtar
The god Dionysus, to rescue Semele from Hades[3]
Heracles, for his twelfth labor, on which occasion he also rescued Theseus
The god Hermes, to rescue Persephone from Hades
Orpheus, to rescue Eurydice from Hades
Persephone and Demeter
Psyche
Odysseus
Aeneas, to speak to his father in the Aeneid
Theseus and Pirithous try to abduct Persephone; they fail, and only Theseus is rescued by Heracles

The idea is shown in Sumerian and Egyptian literature as well so it far pre-dates Homer.

But Drippy looks at all this and says "but my god is different." No, Drippy, it isn't. It is the same old shit.

... Am I missing something or are you asserting that Christ went to hades/hell as well?? Do you have book chapter and verse for this assertion, or are you going off of what your video says?

IF you do not Have B/C/V that clearly states Christ went to Hades/Hell then there is no parallel between Christ and those who went to 'hades/hell.'

[The Grand Nudger]

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? 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....

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.

[Brian37]

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? 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....

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.

This is why, although picking apart that comic book is fun, at the same time it is a HUGE distraction away from even before you get to the first letter in that comic book, the entire house is built on the stupid claim that imaginary friends are real. So I hate any argument that starts on a Yellow Brick Road. Once you are in it, it is hard to pull the delusional out of it.

Good logic works like this.

Prior tested and proven data=established formula=projected outcome

Theist logic works backwards.

"Sounds nice"<=made up formula(pulling shit out of your ass)<=desired outcome.

So I prefer to skip the crap and start with their starting point. It is all the same no matter what religion or superstition or conspiracy crap people claim.

Theism depends on appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, and require suspension of disbelief, and those will NEVER be good quality control.

---

What Drippy can never understand, apparently, is the concept of literature. The Homeric tales are apparently the oldest example of Western literature and were told/retold and read for centuries. We have no idea of how common Homeric themes were in ancient literature because most of it has been lost by the action of time or deliberate destruction by idiot xtians. Fortunately for the West the islamic revolt against learning came late enough for much to have been transferred before they became fundie assholes, too.

One of the concepts in question here is katabasis and here is a list of just the Greco-Roman heroes who went to Hades.


The idea is shown in Sumerian and Egyptian literature as well so it far pre-dates Homer.

But Drippy looks at all this and says "but my god is different." No, Drippy, it isn't. It is the same old shit.

... Am I missing something or are you asserting that Christ went to hades/hell as well?? Do you have book chapter and verse for this assertion, or are you going off of what your video says?

IF you do not Have B/C/V that clearly states Christ went to Hades/Hell then there is no parallel between Christ and those who went to 'hades/hell.'

Hades originally meant "trash heap". 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.

---

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.

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.

[Drich]

So nobody outside the Roman Catholic church has poured over them.

For the purpose of Identifying historical documents? No. The general concensus of main stream academia, is that eveything contain in the vatican libaries are by default religious texts.

Then how do you know what they contain?

I saw a documentary on the Vatican libary and the Priest in charge said that there are hundreds of books letters and manuscripts that have absolutly nothing to do with the cannonical accounts of Christ.

starting with video 1
@2:11 the host states that the resurection is based in our current form/matter/body. When Clearly the bible states in 1 cor 15:42...

---

fSo is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; git is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 kThe first man was from the earth, la man of dust; mthe second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, nso also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just oas we have borne the image of the man of dust, pwe shall6 also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Mystery and Victory

50 I tell you this, brothers: qflesh and blood rcannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. sWe shall not all sleep, tbut we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For uthe trumpet will sound, and vthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality.

---

It's interesting that you should quote 1 Corinthians to dispute that the belief was in a bodily resurrection, when, in the later videos, if you had watched them (somewhere between videos 14 and 18), the video author makes the case that Paul, the author of 1 Corinthians, likely never witnessed a bodily resurrection, but only encountered the resurrected Christ in scripture and prophecy, in dreams, or in visions (possibly brought on by epilepsy).

If one truly encounters the resurrected Christ (Regaurdless of how it happened Clinically.) Then He has indeed encountered the Resurrected Christ. At no point did anything Paul says about the final resurrection contradict what Christ said about the Final resurrection.

There seems to be two seperate concepts the mockumentry guy is intentionally trying to blur. the terms/meaning of Bodily resurrection, as in the case of what happened to lazarus: egeirō (Raise) ek (from) nekros (Dead) and Resurection as in the Final resurection of 1 Cor 1 like I orginally posted, but it also is the word in these other verses as well1 Corinthians 15:35-49 these verses explain that the final resurrection is not a bodily resurection.)
In addition to Paul's view of the resurection we also have John, John of Patmos, and Peter's thoughts, and depending on who you think John of Patmos is all of these guys witnessed bodily resurection. (and even performed them.)
(John 5:25-29) (Revelation 20:5) (2 Peter 3:7-12; Revelation 20:11). (John 5:28-29). Which is word: "anastasis" (Resurection in the greek)
Yet they still refer to the final resurection as being a seperate event than raising someone from the dead.

Contrasting the author's later point with his claim that it was the presentation of the idea of a bodily resurrection that caused the crowd in Acts 17 to respond the way they did, rejecting his message, would have made an interesting inconsistency to point out. However a couple of points you and the author are glossing over here. First of all, this is a mixed group of Jews and Greeks that he is speaking to in Acts, and he has been followed from Thessalonica by people who are unhappy with what he's been doing. Moreover, Paul, according to Acts, only refers to Jesus having been "raised from the dead," so it's not clear whether the question of bodily versus spiritual resurrection was even at issue here. Even if the issue were live, quoting things written many years after the fact does nothing to tell us what the actual mood of the time was among the Hellenes, especially describing the mission of someone who himself was likely originally a Pharisee, and may have had conflicting motives with respect to the question of bodily resurrection.

Paul did not write acts, Luke did. Luke was a gentile/Slave of Theolopus. (which is why Acts and Luke were written to Him.) That said Pharisees did not believe in Bodily resurection, their resurection was the resurection of Daniel, and Isaiah. So for Paul to acknoweledge that Christ was raised from the dead shows an unbiased Paul.

And if the video author's case in later videos is valid, you're looking to someone who himself never witnessed the bodily resurrected Christ for information on what it is proper to believe about the event. (And Paul's general disagreement over points of doctrine relative to the apostles is well documented.)

Which is very unlikly as He did spend time with the other Apstoles before setting out on his own. Even so I listed references of Peter and John seperating bodily and Spiritual resurections.

Actually, no, he does not. Quoting the video, "Even among the Jews of Jesus' day, there were those who did not believe that the resurrection was even possible," indicating explicitly that he was referring to only a portion of the Jews, and he makes no mention of them being "religious leaders."

I dentifying them as Saducees is a proclimation to the prominance of those specific 'jews of the Day." In order to be labled a Saducee one was of the ruling class of that religion. This can not be denied because He quoted a passage that identifed them as such.

The question of bodily resurrection was still an issue even in the second century CE, with the Christian writers Irenaeus and Justin Martyr writing against the idea that only the soul survived. Justin Martyr wrote, "Seeing as ... the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men."

The bible was not compiled to the third and not well circulated till over 1000 years later. Meaning Justin may not have had access to Pauls works 1Cor 15. Or Justin simply did not follow the same path as what will be known as biblical Christianity.

The fundamental difference which is a point the author never disputed either explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, it's worth noting that the Pharisees were a minority Judaic sect, that advocated holding themselves apart from the pagan Greeks including forbidding intermarriage.

The question you should be asking is why? Why did the forbid inter marriage? For it was the same reason the believed in the resurection. Because they were scriptural literists. They believed in the holy scriptures to the letter of the Law. (Which is also why Christ rebuked them so harshly.) They believed in the Letter of the law even to the exclusion of the Spirit of the Law.

Since the author is explicitly referencing the Greek mindset, your point in emphasizing that an isolationist sect of Jews may have believed in the bodily resurrection amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

If this were true then why did He quote the Saducee's question to Christ in the first place?

He was trying to establish that the idea or implication was that the resurection(bodily) was greek in orgin and not a Jewish concept. Why else would he quote the rulling class of Judaism?

No, you can stop. You've adequately documented your incompetence, lack of scholarship and general abuse and misuse of sources.

I will tell you, in fairness, however, that I didn't expect a different or more substantive reaction from you. And I don't lay the blame on you as a person. This is simply the way that human psychology is built, and both sides do it, it's not an atheist versus theist thing. The mind is built with standard predispositions, the like of which conspire to reinforce the person's existing beliefs, regardless of the content of the material they are exposed to, whether it be pro or con. The human mind is like a ratchet that can only tighten once it has started with a belief. That's just human nature 101, and your behavior is not in any sense unusual, excluding your own personal touches of course.

So don't be dismayed. Watch the videos, don't watch the videos. Nobody here actually expects you to change your views based on the evidence. That's simply not going to happen.

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I answered the video in a format in which the average atheist member is looking for a christian to respond. One that displays emotion and back with enough 'fact' to beg a legitmate response, but not so much as to to completely overwhelm/show my hand.

From this initial volley I get to decide (based on who responds and how they wish to approach the subject) how deep we need to go. Why do I do this? Because Aside from you, there have been no takers. Only personal attacks with little to no content concerning the actual topic.

I suspect it is because of my orginal assessment. Video watchers and quotes are not invested enough in thier own arguements to care. If there is to be a dialog it has to look like something one can be apart of with out a whole lot of effort.

That said if you want to go miniute by minute on each and everyone of these videos then I'll be happy to drop the pretense and put it all out there. Just know my efforts will mirror your own. Meaning so long as you are involved at 100% I too will give my best.

---

If you give substantive dialogue, you'll get it......If you start doing the christian two step........prepared to get hammered.

I really get tired of both theists and atheists that think language and choice of words is offensive, when what should really offend them is their own use of logic and the religious violence that results from human gullibility. That is the really offensive stuff not "your claim is fucking stupid".

Imagine how much more peaceful the world would be if the worst most of us had to worry about is being offended.

I would not call "The earth is not flat you moron" a "cheap shot". I would call it cold water on the face in order to get someone to wake up. Otherwise if we always avoided offending others we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

---

If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

Nice cop out. So you use faith in combo with other things? So, still amounts to dodging that "faith" means nothing and is not a virtue. It is a mental excuse you have inflicted yourself with to ignore reality.

"Faith" is merely pulling shit out of your ass because and clinging to it because it sounds nice. It has never been or ever will be any form of credible quality control. Otherwise if "faith" was valid the sun is a god because the Egyptians had "faith" it was.

"Faith" is nothing more than human ignorance and a childish narcissistic placebo. It challenges nothing and bullies or emotionally blackmails questioners. I am glad humans throughout our evolution dared to reject "faith" we are much better off because of it.

If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

Again, you have not made the sightest effort in displaying the parallels you said were so blantly there. Appearently I am supposed to go on blind faith that these parallels are indeed there.

---

What did you think we were talking about in our feeding of the multitudes posts? We were talking about the use of doublets, foreshadowing,and allusion -specifically in the service of pericope - ....it was lost on you there, it will be lost on you here.

I read few posts not addressed to me, as I do not want to inturpt another's thought or arguement.

In that narrative, the doublet is probably the strongest example - as we read the second telling of the same tale (the second telling more likely being the authors own upsized version of whatever source he drew from) - we the reader know full well how jesus intends to feed the multitudes - by magic, and so we get to watch his disciples fall on their own swords - and learn from their mistakes as party to a third person omniscient narrators thought stream (which includes a dissolution of temporal frame - we are treated to the future in the first narrative - bare bones..it is then rewound and fleshed out for our viewing pleasure).

Magic..

To conceive of this as a "just-so" story is to ignore the very real and very apparent skill of the author - and his familiarity with the sorts of literary devices that are part of the larger picture and shared ancestry of "western literature". As a "just-so" story it could have been left at the first - naked narrative. This would not have been a suitable vehicle for the authors message - and so he reaches into his bag of tricks and pulls out the doublet...thus investing the narrative with theology. The characters therein do not say the things that they do for any reason other than that it served the purpose of the author. They -have- to wring their hands and play the chorus (you know..the chorus..that other narrative device so commonly employed by greek writers to highlight some aspect of the narrative - keep the audience involved- make it clear...in no uncertain terms, what they should be thinking about...what question they should be asking themselves - to provide a call/response for the narrator to establish the necessity of their next verse........in short..what the disciples are mostly engaged in the business of as foil to jesus throughout the entirety of your narrative?) otherwise the author cannot keep the story moving forward towards the conclusion he wishes to pen.

In short, the narrative is fictitious, the characters exist and act in accordance with the will of the author - because they have to - so that the author can invest his own narrative with his own message. That the author utilizes the doublet (the retelling of a tale with details emphasized differentially between the two..establishing irony and insider knowledge) - that the author alludes to older tales to establish the cultural continuity of the narrative (makes it available and familiar to the audience), that this narrative is both foreshadowed - and serves to foreshadow the next bit of narrative, shows us that the author was - at the very least, familiar with all of these tools which are common to the literary tradition of the time (and remain common, btw).

As pericope, as a story, this narrative is masterful. As a -just so- we could remove one of the two retellings of the tale..and we'd most likely want to remove the more elbaorate version......but this would remove the source of one of the theological underpinnings which is integral to christianity. IOW, to remove the fiction is to remove a critical part of your belief system. Get it?

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