How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[I am God]

In my readings I've come to the conclusion that this myth was created because they needed it to be true. The flash point for the Christian faith are the big four gospels. Everything else flows from this. You can see that Luke and Matthew are full of nonsense and lies. They say Christ was born in Bethlehem when most everywhere else he is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or the Nazarene. The reason they stopped in Bethlehem was because Joseph was on his way to Bethlehem to take part in a Census that never happened during the governorship of Quirinius who didn't take such a position until 10 YEARS after Herod's death who supposedly tried to kill baby Jesus. None of this matches up at all. So it is clearly a work of fiction. But why?

The answer is because Jesus (the man) failed at the task of being Messiah as it was understood by the Jews (The people that invented the concept of Messiah). Messiah was supposed to save Israel and her people. Not figuratively but in real life. He was supposed to be another King David. A ruler that would free the Jews from foreign rule, reestablish the 12 tribes, and be King of Israel and rule by the law of God. Christ did none of this. Israel and their temple were shortly thereafter destroyed. Their people all but exterminated. And their culture nearly pounded and lost in the sand forever. So in ever sense of the word Messiah... Jesus failed. So a new concept of Messiah was created. One where this kingdom wouldn't be one of this world but in heaven. Where he would save our souls... not our flesh. And Messiah could not be defeated because he could not be killed. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi " If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

Throughout time... people claiming to be Messiah (King of the Jews) were killed by more powerful folks like the Romans or even the Jews themselves. So they needed a bullet proof messiah. One that existed on a plain that couldn't be reached by swords and bows. Being brought back from the dead was a pretty common tale back then. There were other street preachers like Jesus that claimed to be able to raise the dead... and people just took it as a matter of fact because it was a time when people believed in magic and sorcery. Wasn't that impressive of a claim to make back then. It'd be like someone now saying they saw a ghost. People just believe that stuff.

[pocaracas]

Not just 12 human proxies. Christ taught us how to obtain the Holy Spirit. This means that each of us becomes his own proxy to God, as God the Spirit indwells each of us. This is why Christianity works.

And that information came to you through..... one of those 12 proxies... or their stories.... or later editions of those stories.


You know?... It's amazing what Disney does to classical fairy tales.
Have you ever read the Grimm Brothers' fairy tales and compared them to the Disney version that we all know? Very little matches.. and yet, we all prefer the Disney version... To my generation, the Disney version IS the original story.
All this in one generation.
How many did your stories have before they were written down?

Back to fairy tale land... the holy spirit appears to only work on someone who's already been convinced of the existence of the god itself. So, here we go back to the requirement of the original 12 proxies and their stories.

[Esquilax]

What are you talking about? The Apstoles were witnesses of Christ. They died because they would not deny what they saw and were apart of.

Right, and all the other martyrs for all the other religions died for the same reason, just replacing the name of your god with the name of theirs. And yet, somehow, you can entertain the possibility that those guys were mistaken, just... not your guys.

Could this be because of some kind of bias in your thinking that makes you lend more credence to stories you already believe?

Where would you come across such a bias? I wonder!

[Minimalist]

Let's take a dispassionate look at jesus' merry men, shall we.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html#agatha

The Fabricated Deaths of the Apostles

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).

"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate – which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' – crucifixion upside down!

The horseshit these xtians profess to believe!

[MindForgedManacle]

Look at what was accomplished by God taking the approach that He did with the 12. Now look at what the 'broader approach' did for Israel. The path of Christianity eventually lead to 'freedom' FROM Religion. The Broader approach empowered a hand full of croupt men to subjugate an entire race of people.

So let me get this straight Drich. Your argument for why God's logically inferior method of letting his creations take the reigns is better is because of... freedom of religion as a result? What? Had God himself done the job (which was the suggestion you completely dodged), it would have been executed perfectly, oon your worldview. Comparing what men alone did to what God would logically be capable of doing is 1) The kind of illogical BS we've come to expect from you and 2) Practically bordering on heresy.

So again, do with the gentiles what he did with the jews? Do you not understand God was not happy with how the jews governed themselves? That He did not want them to worship the method of worship? Rather be from from the legalism and methodology? So why would He do the exact same thing with Christianity if it did not work with Judaism?

God didn't physically guide the Jews. If he was unhappy how the Jews governed themselves, he could have made it explicit by demonstrating indisputably to them that he was God in a way that could not be denied. What you suggest Drich is a being who can't figure out that, duh, Herp de derp if they don't realize it's actually me (God) commanding this they won't listen. And if I don't tell them such that they cannot mistake it, it won't happen.

Again it completly depended on God's end goal. Your way=Slavery to the religion and religious leaders, God's way=Eventually lead to freedom from religion and a direct relationship with God.

No. If God himself did what he wanted to enact, we would have not only a personal relationship with him, we would have direct, incontrovertible proof that would keep us from failing to realize the supposed truth.

What are you talking about?

Since you completely ignored his bit about God doing it himself, of course you didn't understand that part. He was saying that don't try the nonsensical defense that somehow God revealing himself such that we know he exists transgresses free-will as a reason why God doesn't and hasn't done so, certainly not to everyone if he exists and does do it.

[pocaracas]

It's good to know that someone understands my ramblings!

[Drich]

And that information came to you through..... one of those 12 proxies... or their stories.... or later editions of those stories.


You know?...

Because in the bible there is a series of steps one must do to obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit. I completed those steps and received my Measure of the Holy Spirit.

It's amazing what Disney does to classical fairy tales.
Have you ever read the Grimm Brothers' fairy tales and compared them to the Disney version that we all know? Very little matches.. and yet, we all prefer the Disney version... To my generation, the Disney version IS the original story.
All this in one generation.
How many did your stories have before they were written down?

Are you clueless to biblical History? The witness to said events wrote down or by proxy had the events of their lives written down for them. (not all could read an write.)

Back to fairy tale land... the holy spirit appears to only work on someone who's already been convinced of the existence of the god itself. So, here we go back to the requirement of the original 12 proxies and their stories.

Why would The God of all creation chase after you for your belief, especially when He has already done so much?

[pocaracas]

And that information came to you through..... one of those 12 proxies... or their stories.... or later editions of those stories.


You know?...

Because in the bible there is a series of steps one must do to obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit. I completed those steps and received my Measure of the Holy Spirit.

Did you, now?
Can you distinguish that from some mental state you may have attained?

It's amazing what Disney does to classical fairy tales.
Have you ever read the Grimm Brothers' fairy tales and compared them to the Disney version that we all know? Very little matches.. and yet, we all prefer the Disney version... To my generation, the Disney version IS the original story.
All this in one generation.
How many did your stories have before they were written down?

Are you clueless to biblical History? The witness to said events wrote down or by proxy had the events of their lives written down for them. (not all could read an write.)

Yes, I am a bit clueless as to the actual contents of the story. I know some generalities, which may be more than what you know about "quranic History" which I wager you readily dismiss.

"The witness to the events" who? one of the 12 human proxies? Some other few human proxies?
Allow me not to be amazed by what humans wrote so long ago.

Back to fairy tale land... the holy spirit appears to only work on someone who's already been convinced of the existence of the god itself. So, here we go back to the requirement of the original 12 proxies and their stories.

Why would The God of all creation chase after you for your belief, especially when He has already done so much?

Isn't your claim that this god wants me to acknowledge its existence?
Isn't your claim that this god wants me to accept that it exists and follow in the teachings of the claimed prophets and son of this god?

If that's the case, then it will only succeed by direct contact.
No faulty, brainwashed, indoctrinated, gullible, delusional human proxies are allowed.
It should be fully aware of that, and still... I get nothing. I get human proxies, like yourself.
Like myself, I'm sure there are many who wait in vain for such a direct contact.
What's the deal? Why do so many wait in vain?
Must I accept the human proxy in order to simply acknowledge the existence of such a god? Does that make sense, to you?

[Brian37]

Because in the bible there is a series of steps one must do to obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit.

Only one step is required to believe in any fictional deity, swallow first. Everything after that is making excuses.

[xpastor]

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

I hope all is well.

Thanks. It's nothing that's going to kill me.

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.

There is no 'mental contortion' here. I simply looked up the orginal greek word used in the passage. It has various meaning. I chose the one consistant with the context of the passage in which it was found.

Drich, it's interesting. I explained why my choice of translation (people now living) was correct for the context, but I did not actually use the word context. You used the word but but offered no justification for your chosen translation (race or nation). What you really mean is that you chose race because the other translation would show Jesus making a factual error. We know that the world did not end in his time.

I repeat: a prediction or prophecy is meaningless unless it gives some fairly definite time reference. The span of a generation, 30 years or so, will do. The existence of a national group which is an indeterminate span measured in thousands of years will not. On this matter of prophecy of the end times the church has been barking up the wrong tree for most of its existence. Jesus thought the end would come within his generation. Paul thought that he would be alive when the end came. The lunatic named John who wrote Revelation thought the end would come soon. The Bible ends there, but every generation since has treated these prophecies as though they were a mysterious code pointing to their own time. From Tertullian (late 2nd century) down to Harold Camping (21st century) Christians have claimed that the signs of the end have started to appear in their own generation. There is no reason why the original authors would have written down these prophecies in a mysterious code as it would be meaningless to their contemporaries.

The bible was not written in english, so how foolish is it to only look at the english and take it only at face value?

I was quite aware of the Greek word behind the English quotation I used and of the different meanings it can have.

So why doesn't your understanding work? Because that generation died and Christ did not return. However within the defination of Genea the word can also mean a whole people. Now place that into historical context and the passage still reads true. Which means that any commentary that say the genea means a 'generation' as we understand the word is in error because History does not support this understanding or defination.

My understanding works quite well on the simple assumption that Jesus got it wrong. In fact, he got everything wrong on this subject. There is not going to be a divinely-ordained end of the world —ever. He was a man of his time and place when this apocalyptic view was rife.

Mark 9:1 says the Kingdom of God will come before some of those standing here have died.

The Kingdom came in acts 2 with the our pouring of the Holy Spirit.

No. Remember the chapter breaks in the bible were added much later and are often arbitrary. This has nothing to do with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2. Mark 9:1 refers to the preceding verse (8:38) which tells us: "If you are ashamed of me and of my teaching in this godless and wicked day, then the Son of Man will be ashamed of you when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." This is definitely about the Last Judgment when the Son of Man is supposed to appear in the sky as a glorious figure accompanied by angels.

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)

Read the whole chapter. It says nothing about a second comming, Christ at that point in His ministry (Just after anointing the 12 apstoles.)Christ Is not speaking of a second comming He is speaking about the hard times a head as a direct follower/Apstole of Christ.

The coming of the Son of Man refers purely and simply to the supposed Last Judgment. It is very difficult to make sense of this chapter on the assumption that Jesus spoke all the words attributed to him. He is represented as saying to the twelve disciples:

16 Listen! I am sending you out just like sheep to a pack of wolves. You must be as cautious as snakes and as gentle as doves. 17 Watch out, for there will be those who will arrest you and take you to court, and they will whip you in the synagogues. 18 For my sake you will be brought to trial before rulers and kings, to tell the Good News to them and to the Gentiles. 19 When they bring you to trial, do not worry about what you are going to say or how you will say it; when the time comes, you will be given what you will say. 20 For the words you will speak will not be yours; they will come from the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 People will hand over their own brothers to be put to death, and fathers will do the same to their children; children will turn against their parents and have them put to death. 22 Everyone will hate you because of me. But whoever holds out to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, run away to another one. I assure you that you will not finish your work in all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Now these things did not in fact happen to the twelve disciples as they went through Israel: being brought to court, people handing over brothers and children to be put to death, etc., etc. There is only one way to make sense of it, which I know you will not accept but here it is for the benefit of the open-minded. Verses 16 - 22 were never spoken by Jesus. They describe what happened to Christians decades later: they were persecuted by the Jews (whip you in the synagogues) and arrested by the Roman authorities. It is a passage to encourage people to hang on in the face of persecution. It got stuck in here and then was followed by what probably are authentic words of Jesus, telling his disciples that the Last Judgment would come before they even had a chance to go through all the towns of Israel.