How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Godscreated]

---

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.

---

[Drich]

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 do you say mark is the cloest account we have? Because that is what you been taught? What if what your teacher was wrong? would you be willing your line of thought to be wrong, because it is based on an incorrect assumption that Mark was written much later than it was?

Most Atheists believe Mark was written after the burning of the temple in 70AD (Because how could mark been able to fortell the destruction of the temple?) The most generous estimates I have found place authorship at 75 AD http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelo...dating.htm

If this assumption is correct then Mark is not the oldest gospel account. Luke (Former gentile historean/Doctor/Slave of Theophilus) wrote the book of Acts. The book of acts ends with the beginning of Paul's ministry in Rome (where He lived for 2 years and worked 'unapposed.') which puts authorship of acts between 58 and 64 (Because that was when he was killed.) Paul's death would have not gone unmentioned by Paul's right hand man.

So because we know the book of acts was written before 64 AD we know the book of Luke to be written well before even that. Why? Because in the intro of the book of Luke He starts out with a Greeting to his Former Owner Theophilus. (We know He Owned luke at the time because of the greeting Luke 1:1 starts out with and we know Luke was Free because of the greeting The Book of Acts says so, Luke was given over to Paul as a desciple.)
Luke1:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

Acts1:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201&version=ERV

This makes the book of Luke older than Mark if you insist on saying the book of mark was written after the destruction of the temple.

If nothing else this puts all of the books start date into question.

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

Because Christ Claimed to be the Messiah, and as such was to be resurrected. They knew if that body did not stay in the grave they would loose their hold on their people.

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.

does it say it was on flate ground or an incline when being rolled into place? If it were on an incline it would be easy to put into place but next to impossiable to move alone. Which would be ideal if you wanted to keep grave robbers out. (Remember this was his grave initially, and keeping grave robbers out would have been a key buying point for a man of means.)

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

It depends.

[Minimalist]

Most Atheists believe Mark was written after the burning of the temple in 70AD

And most stupid fucking xtians think he was taking dictation as his godboy walked around.

He wasn't.


BTW, the site was not leveled in 70...which is what your godboy says:

And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mark 13:2

But it was leveled in 135. That's when this fucking "prophecy" came true.

Hadrian's engineers leveled the site, tamped it down and built Aelia Capitolina on top of it. This is history. Learn some of it.

[max-greece]

GC

"An angel, he rolled away the stone, the angel knew Jesus was going to raise from the dead, no need to steal the body. Just like a lot of ancient history we assume it to be true..."

This is your answer? Really? The young man was an angel and Mark forgot to mention it?

You go on to say just like a lot of history we assume it to be true - an ANGEL???!!! I don't recall any item of history outside of a religious text that cites an imaginary being and then assumes it to be true - do you?

"It was easier to roll the stone in front of the tomb but it probably took more than one person. However it would have taken several men to roll it away as there was a large dip the stone was rolled into. The dip was there so people would not be able to roll away the stone and rob the grave."

What dip? Mark doesn't mention a dip? Even if there was a dip (and maybe a padlock - who knows) the young man was there to help presumably.

"You see it as embellished, I see more detailed stories being told, we see this today in news report, right."

Over a period of a day, maybe a week - not 30 years or more. "News just in - we can confirm that Nixon is no longer president of the US."

Extremely poor GC - I mean honestly.

Drich,

Every reference I have found refers to Mark as the oldest Gospel. If you know different have at it.

"The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μᾶρκον, to euangelion kata Markon), commonly shortened to the Gospel of Mark or simply Mark, is the second book of the New Testament. This canonical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the three synoptic gospels. It was thought to be an epitome, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible. However, most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels[1] (c 70).[2] That Mark was used as a source for the other synoptic gospels, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, is widely held by many, although not all, New Testament scholars"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

It does say not all scholars agree but I'll go with the majority. I don't have a horse in the race so it seems a reasonable position.

"They knew if that body did not stay in the grave they would loose their hold on their people."

Well now - and how do you know what they knew? Anything to back that statement up. In the meantime, of course, the body did leave the grave and yet strangely they didn't lose their hold on the people.

"does it say it was on flate ground or an incline when being rolled into place? If it were on an incline it would be easy to put into place but next to impossiable to move alone. Which would be ideal if you wanted to keep grave robbers out. (Remember this was his grave initially, and keeping grave robbers out would have been a key buying point for a man of means.)"

It doesn't say anything about the ground - should we assume it was on an incline? I'm glad you haven't invented a dip like others appear to want to do - but if it was on an incline who is to say the stone was rolled away uphill? I also questioned whether it was his grave afterall. There's scant evidence for that. We only have his word for it - and if he is a grave-robber as I have suggested then that may not be worth much.

Overall - slightly better than GC - but only slightly.

[Minimalist]

If you set the bar low enough.........

[Godscreated]

@ max-greece, if you're going to quote me from now own you need to use the quote tags and put in my entire quote. You are being dishonest in what you have portrayed me saying. Yes this is a complaint, seriously.

GC

[Anomalocaris]

If you set the bar low enough.........

Yes, but this is drich, even the belly of pond scum like CG is still not a trivial height for drich to surpass. Give him credit.

[Minimalist]

@ max-greece, if you're going to quote me from now own you need to use the quote tags and put in my entire quote. You are being dishonest in what you have portrayed me saying. Yes this is a complaint, seriously.

GC

Who died and made you king?

[max-greece]

@ max-greece, if you're going to quote me from now own you need to use the quote tags and put in my entire quote. You are being dishonest in what you have portrayed me saying. Yes this is a complaint, seriously.

GC

If you feel I have mis-represented your case please illustrate that - otherwise I might interpret this post as a diversionary tactic to get out of a hole (or is it a dip?)

There was no deliberate attempt to misrepresent.

Also I replied using the little quick reply box at the bottom and that doesn't lend itself to using proper quote tags without typing the hypertext instructions manually - which is a PITA.

[Godscreated]

GC

"An angel, he rolled away the stone, the angel knew Jesus was going to raise from the dead, no need to steal the body. Just like a lot of ancient history we assume it to be true..."

This is your answer? Really? The young man was an angel and Mark forgot to mention it?

You go on to say just like a lot of history we assume it to be true - an ANGEL???!!! I don't recall any item of history outside of a religious text that cites an imaginary being and then assumes it to be true - do you?

This is the way you presented what I said, you purposely left off the end of the statement so you could make a joke of what I stated.

An angel, he rolled away the stone, the angel knew Jesus was going to raise from the dead, no need to steal the body. Just like a lot of human history we assume it to be true, why, because there was no need to lie.

This is what I stated, it was in reply to your questions which you also omitted to confuse the situation.

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?

An angel, answers your first question.
he rolled away the stone, answers your second question.
the angel knew Jesus was going to raise from the dead, no need to steal the body, answers your third question?
Just like a lot of human history, we assume it to be true, why, because there was no need to lie, answers your fourth question.
You manipulated my statement to make a joke of it, completely dishonest, you are shooting your reputation in the foot with the Christians here.

By the way you need to study history before making yourself look real dumb, tombs of that period always had a large dip in the groove the stone sat in to keep people from rolling it away and robbing the tomb. Go roll a big rock into a ditch, then try rolling it out, careful though we wouldn't want you to injure your toes. No two men could have moved the stone in front of Jesus tomb.

GC

---

@ max-greece, Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the Council, Mark 15:43. He was a member of the Jewish priest, in Mark 14:53 we are told who makes up the Council.

A priest would not steal a dead body, it would be against what he perceived as right and just.

GC