How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Zazzy]

Hey! I liked Elvis... a little before my time...but I do like his music!

Then we are still on speaking terms. Good dog, man, go play some Elvis for your teenagers. They need something to counteract Justin Bieber and Katy Perry.

[max-greece]

I am sure the theists on this thread can answer this one but I have to say there are certain elements to the disposal of Jesus' body I haven't quite got.

Basically Jesus has died on the cross. A guy by the name of Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate and gets the body. There's little explanation of who he is, he doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the Bible other than in the 4 gospel accounts (which don't agree on who he is) describing this event.

Anyway, according to Mark he takes the body and places it in a tomb with the 2 Marys. He then rolls a stone across the entrance and disappears.

When the 2 Marys come back the next morning (?) the stone has been rolled back, the body is gone and a young man sitting by the side of the tomb tells them that Jesus has risen. Again this is the only mention of the Young man.

So:

Who was the young man?
What was he doing sitting besides a tomb in the morning?
How do we know that the young man and Joseph were not in league to steal the body?
How do we know it was even Joseph's tomb as he claimed?

As Joseph rolled the stone into place we can safely assume he could roll it away again (particularly with the help of the young man). It all seems a bit odd to me, but obviously once we have established the first report of the resurrection comes from this strange young man the rest follows as the story gets embellished. This we see in the fact that Mark's gospel actually ends just about there - with the 2 Marys rushing off somewhat confused (Mark 16,8 with verses 9 to 20 being added later). Those additional verses contain the rest of the resurrection story as told in the other, later, gospels.

Unless I have gotten something horribly wrong here I don't see much mystery.

[Mister Agenda]

The problem with such explanations is that they can also support opposite scenarios.

For instance, consider yourself. You believed. Then you read some things in the OT and judged god as unworthy. This sets up cognitive dissonance - if you continue to believe you end up in hell and don't want to consider that. So, you found reasons to discontinue belief.

Giving up one of two conflicting beliefs does resolve cognitive dissonance (although in your example, both beliefs are given up when the obvious solution is to keep believing in God and just stop believing in eternal hell. Universalism is a thing). However, someone discontinuing belief in something that they think is a danger to them is something I've never observed except in the imaginations of Christians trying to figure out atheists. Maybe because it's a very poor survival strategy. I'm not saying you don't have a point about different ways of resolving cognitive dissonance, just that your inability to put yourself in our heads has led you to a poor analogy.

I'm not saying that's what actually happened. I'm just saying that broad concepts like cognitive dissonance can generate tales that go any which way, and so don't really have much value.

It is very broad and if there were nothing to corroborate it, would not be very convincing. However, there are numerous examples of what happens when prophecies fail or semi-divine figures perish. The prophecy actually took place, but 'in a spiritual way', or the prophecy will still happen, we just got the time wrong. Emperor Selassie lives and reigns over all of Creation. The Great Leader Comrade Kim il Sung is immortal! John Frum will return and bring the cargo once again. These examples are all within the last century. It's a (not the only) normal human response to having something you were utterly certain of and invested in turn out to be wrong, especially if you're willing to entertain 'alternative' ways of not being wrong.

So there's a little more to this argument than 'hey, cognitive dissonance!'

[Minimalist]

A guy by the name of Joseph of Arimathea

Moreover, there does not seem to be an "Arimathea" for him to be from.

Luke calls it a city but no one seems to know anything about it but lukey also pulls the same shit routine with "nazareth" which sure as hell was not a "city" either.

The second point is that Joseph of Arimathea would not have been a proper usage for a Jewish noble in first century Judaea. Joseph son of "xxx" (whoever) would have been correct. The X of Y formula was Greco-Roman which seems to indicate that this whole sorry story was just a stage direction to get the body off the cross and offstage for the next act.

Even in Shakespeare's time theaters did not have curtains. Dead bodies had to be carried off stage by groups of soldiers, relatives, retainers, etc.

Just a plot device by whoever wrote this silly story in the first place.

[Mister Agenda]

2000 years from now there will be Elivsists all over the place proclaiming Elvis as the true son of God and rose from the dead.

None of my kids (teens) even know who Elvis is now! Much less care...

Plus, Elvis didn't predict his own death(which probably would've been easy to do), or rising from it! His followers said "he never died".

Nor, did Elvis promise salvation, or even a new cadillac to his followers.

I think you are giving Elvis way too much credit! He proved himself human in many ways. And his legacy is fading away in nursing homes as we speak.

You bring up an interesting point (although I just polled a roomful of people in their early twenties and couldn't find one who didn't know who Elvis was).

However, while it's true that he never claimed to be more than human and no one else claimed he was (that I know of); STILL sightings of him persisted for decades after his death.

Imagine if he had been perceived as divine and the focus of a new religion before he died. The sightings would be cited (sorry) as proof that he really WAS divine and touted as evidence of the religion's validity.

[max-greece]

Min,

This is your area much more than mine. I just re-read Mark's account and it all seemed to fall, rather undramatically, into place - but its just a theory.

BTW - when you look up Arimathea you get some weird shit references including one to a belief Joseph was a tin merchant who visited England (with Jesus in tow no less) to get a supply.

Apparently its the basis for the English Hymn "And did those feet, in ancient times, walk upon England's green and pleasant land?......"

Every day I find a belief even more bizarre than the previous day's.

[Minimalist]

The problem of Arimathea has been known for a long time and has been subject to the same apologetical scrotum-twisting as all the other fuck ups in the bible.

When in doubt, xtians simply make shit up so they feel better. "Fact" is a foreign concept to them.

[Drich]

I am sure the theists on this thread can answer this one but I have to say there are certain elements to the disposal of Jesus' body I haven't quite got.

Basically Jesus has died on the cross. A guy by the name of Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate and gets the body. There's little explanation of who he is, he doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the Bible other than in the 4 gospel accounts (which don't agree on who he is) describing this event.

Anyway, according to Mark he takes the body and places it in a tomb with the 2 Marys. He then rolls a stone across the entrance and disappears.

When the 2 Marys come back the next morning (?) the stone has been rolled back, the body is gone and a young man sitting by the side of the tomb tells them that Jesus has risen. Again this is the only mention of the Young man.

So:

Who was the young man?
What was he doing sitting besides a tomb in the morning?
How do we know that the young man and Joseph were not in league to steal the body?
How do we know it was even Joseph's tomb as he claimed?

As Joseph rolled the stone into place we can safely assume he could roll it away again (particularly with the help of the young man). It all seems a bit odd to me, but obviously once we have established the first report of the resurrection comes from this strange young man the rest follows as the story gets embellished. This we see in the fact that Mark's gospel actually ends just about there - with the 2 Marys rushing off somewhat confused (Mark 16,8 with verses 9 to 20 being added later). Those additional verses contain the rest of the resurrection story as told in the other, later, gospels.

Unless I have gotten something horribly wrong here I don't see much mystery.

In Mat's account The priest compeled pilate to place gaurds at the tomb to ensure that His body was not stolen. It wasn't till the angel roll back the stone and scared off the gaurds did the women find that the tomb was empty.

[Minimalist]

n Mat's account The priest compeled pilate to place gaurds at the tomb to ensure that His body was not stolen.

Yeah...an obvious editorial device to deal with the obvious objection that his followers had stolen the body.

Occam's Razor, Drippy. You should use it.

[max-greece]

Drich,

Perhaps it wasn't clear. Mark is chronologically the closest report we have to the events. Mark, without the later addition, would, therefore, be worth considering at the most accurate account - with less embellishments than the others.

Its simply the old "how big was the fish that my grandfather caught?" Tale.

Why would the priests care whether the body was stolen or not?

Notice also, as the accounts get more distant chronologically that stone seems to get bigger. In Mark, Joseph of A. rolls the stone in place on his own.

Any chance of addressing the rest of the questions raised from Mark in the meantime, just for completeness?

---

n Mat's account The priest compeled pilate to place gaurds at the tomb to ensure that His body was not stolen.

Yeah...an obvious editorial device to deal with the obvious objection that his followers had stolen the body.

Occam's Razor, Drippy. You should use it.

Judging by Mark's account its not clear the followers knew the location of the tomb. Seems much more likely to me that Joe of A. and this young man (both of whom appear conveniently just for this story) took it.

Matthew's account has a whole cock and bull story about guards, angels, bribes and this "story being widely circulated amongst Jews till this very day."

That last bit is a very strange part of Matthew - it is the only time he gives the impression of a long passage of time between the events and his recounting of them. To be honest this whole bit looks very bolted on to me - just as the last 11 verses of Mark were.