How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[KichigaiNeko]

G-C

Pretty lame attempt at dodging the discussion at hand.

Let's face it...xtianity stole the "rising deity" from a plethora of religious thought that preceded it. No if buts or maybes. What you worship is a sanitised version of paganism

[Marvin]

There was this guy Bob, he ran a business called Cosy Caves, "a lovely place for your loved ones to while away their dead years". He used to sell a cave to the grieving/jolly bereaved, entomb the dead guy, seal it up, wait a week, dump the body and resell the tomb.

Occasionally someone would say hey, that's the cave you put uncle Gary in last month.
It's a miracle, he has arisen from the dead!

It's easy to imagine what happened after that.

[max-greece]

---

GC


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.

I am not sure how you think it helps you but OK - if you feel you were mis-represented, fine. You are still claiming a young man to be an angel, which I find a ludicrous assumption.

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.

Well there you go with an angel again. Interesting that the son of God wasn't capable of rolling a stone on his own from the inside but there you go - thank heavens there was an Angel there, huh, and not just a stone rolling angel - but one that gives directions later on - wow!

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.

Yeah well - that's me - dumb as pigshit. Thing is - I've been to the burial grounds around Jerusalem where all the tombs are - have you? There are some pretty ancient tombs there. Interestingly I don't recall seeing any with a circular stone in front.

But at least its good to know that you know that the stone couldn't be moved by even 2 people now. At least this fits in with ever larger stone theory I posited with regard to the gospels. The newest Gospel- the GC gospel has a huge stone, an angel, a ditch and guards? Do you have guards too in your version?

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

And who is he in each of the other gospels? Same? I think not.

[/quote]

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

And yet priests sin. You are confusing what priests should not do with what they would not do

[Drich]

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.

I think you missed the point. I am not disputing whether or not the temple was leveled or not. Before Hadrian's engineers wiped the slate clean, the Roman Army burned the temple, and alot of the temple ornimintation was made from gold. When the temple burned the gold melted and oozed between the cracks in the stone floors, and between the cracks in the walls fillingthem and the puddled and solidified. The larger slugs of gold were cut and taken back to Rome, and the temple was taken down block by block to claim what had 'slipped through the cracks.'

What I was saying was This is why d-bags like you date the book of mark after this destruction of the temple in 70AD. (Because a non believer asks: how could he have said Jesus called for the temple's destruction if it had not already been destroyed)

Those of you who say Mark was written between 70 and 75 AD have to subscribe to roman solider breaking down the temple to get at the melted gold, because 'Hadrian's engineers' didn't get to work till 130AD.

Either way saying the book of Mark is the oldest gospel is wrong simply because, there is evidence that the book of Luke was the first to be written.

[Minimalist]

Really? And how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that one out? The dispute for the longest time was an argument that Matty was first rather than Mark but that idea has been dropped. You are the first person who has ever claimed that luke was first. This should be good.

PS, I don't give a shit about Josephus' fanciful description of the temple fire. The claim made was that jesus said not one stone would remain on top of another. This did not happen in 70. The burned out shell of the building remained. The "prophecy" came true in 135 when the Romans leveled the site to build Aelia Capitolina.

And no, before you say it I think prophecy is a pile of shit. Whatever bozo cobbled this "gospel" together knew full well that ancient Jerusalem had been leveled and put those words into your godboy's mouth to impress generations of fools.

[xpastor]

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

We have never seen a re-animated corpse but there were stories of such not just in the NT but attributed to pagan miracle workers like Apollonius of Tyana. We do know from experience that people often begin by denying the death of a loved one. We do not know from experience that corpses come back to life. Therefore my theory is inherently more probable than yours.

Your wrong here again. Because one more time you do not even know that the acceptance of death was the issue you are making it out to be. They live in a culture of death, the soceity as a whole embraced it, it was not something that needed to be feared.. At least not till the first hell fire and brimstone sermon.

If we accepted your argument, it would prove a hell of a lot more than you wanted it to. If there was a "culture of death" and no one feared death, why would anyone give a damn about a resurrection and a promise of everlasting life?

People go on making up stories to support a position they have taken. Person A says Jesus returned to life. Person B says the disciples probably stole the body. Person A then comes up with a cock-and-bull story that it couldn't have happened because a guard was posted to prevent that very thing. Mind you, I don't even think the disciples actually stole the body. The story just got started that Jesus was alive as with the stories about Elvis or Amelia Earhart.

You claim to be a pastor, but you do not seem to know of all of the things that happened between the death of Christ and the establishment of the Church. There were some very tall hurrdles that were cleared inorder for Christianity to become a religion.

I do not claim to be a pastor. I most assuredly was a pastor, but I quit almost 30 years ago. I still know what was written in Acts and the rest of the New Testament at least as well as you do. I just don't believe it anymore.

I see you found a translation to support your position. So lets look at the Greek in verse 34:Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
The word here for generation is: genea It can mean generation as we understand the word to mean but defination 2 says it also can mean a whole people.. As in the Jews (all of them.)

That means Christ was saying that the Jewish people will not pass away till these things come to pass.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...1074&t=KJV

Drich, it's quite amusing. I was a pastor in a church which upheld biblical inerrancy. 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. I remember going through this argument even before I was a pastor. I thought that the translation I used here might be some liberal attempt to devalue scripture. Sound familiar? Yes, it is true that the Greek genea occasionally means all those born of a common ancestor. However, the most common meaning is that used in the Good News Translation: all the people living at the same time. You obviously did not read the authority you cite because in fact it assigns the third meaning (the whole multitude of men living at the same time) to that very verse, Matthew 24:34. Long ago like you I clutched at the straw that it should mean race, the world will not end as long as the Jewish race exists, and I read exegetes blathering on about how remarkable it was that the Jewish people had survived. It doesn't work for two reasons. 1. The context calls for a clear time reference These things will happen before this generation dies. Nothing clear about when a nation will die. 2. There is nothing remarkable about the survival of the Jewish people. There are lots of nations still in existence which are just as old: The Greeks are still a people and speak what is recognizably the same language as they used in the time of Homer. The Chinese have lasted even longer.

Besides all that there are other NT passages which make it perfectly plain that Jesus predicted the end of the world (the Son of Man coming in power) would occur within his own generation. Mark 9:1 says the Kingdom of God will come before some of those standing here have died. 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)

Sounds like a definite prophecy of the end of the world within that generation.

Indeed it does, it's just that one has to understand the bible was written in Koine Greek and the the king james english, and when they seek a bible translation it must be a translation from the Koine Greek and not an easy to read version of the king james english if they are to use that version to support a proper exegesis of scripture.

What on earth are you trying to say? Are you related to that little old lady? The one who supposedly told the pastor he shouldn't use the modern translation because "if the King James version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." The Good News Bible is a translation from the Hebrew and the Greek, not a modern paraphrase. You are more likely to find slanted paraphrases in fundamentalist-friendly versions like The Living Bible (aka The Way) or the "translations" of the New International Version. Are you unaware that the King James version is based on a very poor Greek text of the New Testament? Even the most rigid fundamentalists would tell you that.

Yes, crowds of people would enjoy the sadism, and I have no doubt the parents or spouse or children of a slain gladiator would grieve for him. If we do not have a common humanity, your theory of Jesus' dying for our sins has no meaning.

Moving the goal posts. You were not talking about simple grief. You were talking the level of grief that inspired 12 men to start a whole religion. What gladiator has a 2000 year old following?

No, I was not talking about simple grief originally although I veered into that topic to counter your absurd claim that people in that era did not feel grief. I was originally talking about the cognitive dissonance which occurred because the disciples believed intensely that Jesus would bring in a new age (redeem Israel) but he had been killed without that happening. As I have amply demonstrated, religious sects often go into denial when their expectations are falsified by the facts.

Your missing the bigger point. The Jews (per the crusification of Christ) had the power of life and death in their hands. They could kill people in the most terriable way possiable, all they needed was a reason. Heresy was such a reason. With this power why didn't they have the deciples killed if they thought them to be blasphomous heritics? Just like they did with Christ, UNLESS they were witnessed to the claims of the post resurection bible themselves?

They had to endure or witness something to cause them to at least stop and reevaluate their MO. Because again they killed Christ for far less than what they let the Apstoles get away with.

Duh. You seem to have forgotten that Acts tells the story of the martyrdom of Stephen and says that Paul, with the authority of the high priest, was arresting Christians.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well, this is fun. The mental contortions one has to go through to maintain Biblical inerrancy is indeed great; I used to have to do them. One interesting thing to note is that these contortions almost NEVER occur for theological positions that the Christian in question already accepts from verses they claim are explicit.

"Is Jesus God?"

"Of course he is! This verse here says so!"

"What about this one where he says he is not God? Or that he is not good, but only God is? Or that he doesn't know when he will return, but only God does (and thus he's not omniscient)?"

"Well you, when read properly (by someone who is already a Trinitarian), it can be interpreted as saying..."


It just never ends, because intellectual integrity and consistency aren't to be used to invalidate the faith, and an inerrantist can't think it even could in principle.

[Godscreated]

Well, this is fun. The mental contortions one has to go through to maintain Biblical inerrancy is indeed great; I used to have to do them. One interesting thing to note is that these contortions almost NEVER occur for theological positions that the Christian in question already accepts from verses they claim are explicit.

"Is Jesus God?"

"Of course he is! This verse here says so!"

"What about this one where he says he is not God? Or that he is not good, but only God is? Or that he doesn't know when he will return, but only God does (and thus he's not omniscient)?"

"Well you, when read properly (by someone who is already a Trinitarian), it can be interpreted as saying..."


It just never ends, because intellectual integrity and consistency aren't to be used to invalidate the faith, and an inerrantist can't think it even could in principle.

With statements like that I can see why you were having to do contortions.

GC

[Esquilax]

With statements like that I can see why you were having to do contortions.

GC

There's a very mean part of me that feels like agreeing with you, then proceeding to add that, as another writer of fiction, the concept of two separate aspects to the same being occurred to me as quickly as it must have to the bible authors.

So I think I will!