How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Minimalist]

Aren't Daniel and Revelation apocalypse novels,

The themes from the Greek class of novel were usually quite sappy...two young lovers face trials and tribulations before finally attaining happiness. Think Harlequin Romances!

Those two are classified as apocalyptic literature....basically, "you may throw sand in my face but just you wait until my big brother gets here." Fitting for the mind of idiots who believe in all-powerful invisible sky-daddies but reality is always different.

I'm convinced that Revelations started out as Jewish wishful-thinking about the Great Revolt and Daniel was finished in 167 BC since all the things it "predicts" before that date happened and all the things it "predicts" afterwards did not. Again, it is enough to impress gullible morons.

Esther I have never read so can't comment.

[Medi]

quote='rightcoaster' pid='563260' dateline='1387050437']

I tried to reply yesterday, but the post shows no text. Maybe this will work better. I apologize for any duplication, it's unintended:

To Medi: Your assessment seems very good. A big concern of the Jews is that a living person would be interred, given that the obligation is to bury quickly. That's why there are "shomrim" in Judaism, who watch over the body to make sure it is really dead.

Now, as to whether Jesus was actually dead when removed (some here argue nothing at all of this happened, but that does not lead to any discussion, and what is life without a good argument?), he was also scourged beforehand. As I understand that process, the person is pretty well flayed open. Seems to me one could lose a lot of blood if an artery were nicked in the process, maybe bleed to death in well under six hours.

---

Was one of these 'shomrim' present with Jesus?

It's just that I would imagine, considering the hatred of many of the Jews toward Jesus, that he probably wouldn't have been afforded such a right (perhaps?). Maybe that's why Mary was there?

There's also the question of myrrh and frankinsence at the tomb. These are used in Asia to treat wounds, so perhaps the women came with the intent of trying to heal Jesus?

Concerning his time in Kashmir and India, the Bhavishvya Mahaj Purani, sanskrit writings, hold eye-witness accounts of the king Raja Shalvan coming across a man who called himself 'Yussasaf' who said, when asked for his religion, 'love is the name of my faith', and went on to describe how he'd been tortured in Israel and miraculously survived. That would explain how he came to some of the prophets with holes in his hands and then says 'I'm going to my master', the same 'master' whose business he'd been about during his twenties.

There's a prophecy that was torn from the Pali writings of Buddha that talks about Jesus in a story, after Buddha's disciple Ananda asks him 'how can we be rid of our desire for misdeeds (sin) for good?' and the Buddha replies something like 'it would take you to rub that wooden post three times a day until it is dust to be rid of your desire for misdeeds', and continues to prophecy someone who'll come after him to remove sin from the world.

Loads of the existing writings prophecy 'metteya' (pronounced meth-ayia), who'll come to teach kindness to the world.

The parables of the sewing of seeds, Jesus teachings on 'love others as yourself' and a whole host of other points, they're written almost identically in buddhist texts that were made hundreds of years before Jesus' birth.

Only two full tribes of Israel lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' life, and the rest had emigrated east. It's probably not a coincidence that Thomas went east too, towards India.

In Herath, there is a group of muslims who refer to Jesus as 'Yusassaf the Kashmiri'.

There's also a large Buddhist following in Kasmir and Southern Nepal that talk of a man called 'Issa' who fits Jesus description.

There's evidence out there to be found, but how much biblical writing and narrative of Jesus lies either in the Vatican vaults or has been burned throughout the ages? Between crusades and popes that think torture and witch-burning are viable actions to be taken from Jesus' teachings, I can't really agree that those kinds of people were ever qualified to choose what is viable as biblical writing and what isn't.

Personally, from reading Theravadas, I don't think there's any doubt Jesus took after Buddha. And I'm stumped if I have to accept that a man died, came back to life and then disappeared into metaphysical bliss when the alternative makes a lot more sense.

[rightcoaster]

quote='rightcoaster' pid='563260' dateline='1387050437']

---

Was one of these 'shomrim' present with Jesus?

It's just that I would imagine, considering the hatred of many of the Jews toward Jesus, that he probably wouldn't have been afforded such a right (perhaps?). Maybe that's why Mary was there?

RC: I dunno, nobody can know. And I don't know whether corpse-watching-over was universally done then or ever. Jesus was an executed criminal, it was a holy day, help was scarce or on vacation, so maybe there was a shomer, but maybe/probably not. If anyone was there to watch over the corpse, why did he/she wait to show up until Sunday morning if the body was entombed late Friday afternoon? If a shomer was required/provided/showed up, there could not have been a seal (an implausible story element anyway).

As for the rest of your post, all I can say is "ommmm".

[Ksa]

RC: I dunno, nobody can know. And I don't know whether corpse-watching-over was universally done then or ever. Jesus was an executed criminal, it was a holy day, help was scarce or on vacation, so maybe there was a shomer, but maybe/probably not. If anyone was there to watch over the corpse, why did he/she wait to show up until Sunday morning if the body was entombed late Friday afternoon? If a shomer was required/provided/showed up, there could not have been a seal (an implausible story element anyway).

You know 2,000 years after, what can we do to prove such things...but what about in the year 600? If we could roll back time by 1,400 years, it would definitely give a more accurate picture. In my opinion, the best clue that something is VERY wrong with the resurrection is found in the Qur'an, in Surat An-Nisā'4, Verses 157-158 which says:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."

Put yourself in the shoes of the Muslims who wrote the Qur'an. To make such a strong, definitive and precise affirmation in a book that was meant to last forever, it means that even in the year 600 there was fuckall clues about any of that. I assume the brilliant Muslim scholars who reunited to write the book (before handing it over to Muhammad so he could claim he was illiterate and got it from God), had examined every piece of evidence, every sculpture, every inch of tomb/relics and found NO EVIDENCE of anything or they would NEVER have taken the risk of writing such a thing. Never ever.

Furthermore, the ascension was thrown out of the King James version of the Bible as a fabrication. By whom? Not by Atheists, Muslims or Jews, but by 32 Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed up by 50 cooperative denominations, they found it was a fabrication and they threw it out of the (RSV) revised standard version of the Bible. It is nowhere found in the original manuscript.

But if the ascension was an interpolation, and the Muslims of the year 600 are saying none of that happened. It's puzzling really. It's hard for someone to die on a cross in a few hours and we know Jesus was not critically injured or he would have never been able to carry out his cross. It says it wasn't even Jesus...which could work with his statement "Ellay ellay lamassa bahtani" Oh God oh God why has though forsaken ME? Why ME? I've done nothing. It was someone else that should have been here. He never said FAATHER. ABBA. He says my God. We know Jesus adressed god as FAATHER. So he changed idea there.

[Minimalist]

Put yourself in the shoes of the Muslims who wrote the Qur'an.

Perhaps they were docetists all along?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

Docetae

(Greek Doketai.)

A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death.

[Ksa]

^ Yep and maybe they knew and even had proof of the substitution theory and then destroyed it. The reason why Surat An-Nisā'4:157-158 is so disturbing is because usually, the Qur'an uses very ambiguous words and phrase structures that can mean anything when making claims lol. But Surat An-Nisā'4:157-158 is very precise, in fact I would go as far as saying it's THE most precise statement in the Qur'an. I don't think they would have written it in such precise language with no CERTAIN knowledge. In my opinion, they knew the truth and when you know the truth, no one can prove you wrong. They somehow had access to Roman documents or such that revealed everything.

[Minimalist]

They somehow had access to Roman documents or such that revealed everything.

It was called the Byzantine Empire by that time.

Again, Robert Spencer has archaeological evidence of crosses on allegedly early muslim coins. His book, Did Muhammed Exist, is well worth reading.

[xpastor]

Put yourself in the shoes of the Muslims who wrote the Qur'an.

Perhaps they were docetists all along?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

Docetae

(Greek Doketai.)

A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death.

I think the Gnostics are a more plausible source. The Docetists were quasi-orthodox accepting the NT record of Jesus' words and actions, but since he was deemed to be God, they thought he could not suffer any human weakness including the pain of the crucifixion.

The Gnostics believed that salvation for spirits imprisoned in the material world came from illumination, secret teaching which showed how to transcend the material plane, and they wrote their own gospels of Jesus' supposed hidden teachings.

The relationship between the two groups can be roughly described as all Gnostics were Docetists, but not all Docetists were Gnostics.

The Gnostics deal with Jesus' suffering and death in various ways. Some taught, like the Docetists, that Jesus was only a phantasm appearing to be human as he went through the motions of his life. Others taught that the divine logos was united with the man Jesus but abandoned him once he was nailed up. Then there was the charming theory that Jesus disappeared on the road to Golgotha and left Simon of Cyrene to be crucified in his place—Jesus thought that was just a million yuks.

Anyway, Gnosticism was prevalent in Egypt, so it's quite plausible that a few centuries later a camel jockey like Mohammed would come across some confused survivals of the traditions.

I don't know where Ksa gets this idea of Muslim scholars who really wrote the Koran. Even if they did, assiduous fact checkers were few and far between in the ancient world. As Ehrman points out, if someone told a story of Jesus' resurrection even in the time of Paul, it was virtually impossible for the auditors to travel long distances and interview the supposed eye witnesses. However, I do wonder if Ksa may be confusing the Koran with the Hadith. The Koran is traditionally ascribed to Mohammed dictating verbatim the words that an angel spoke to him; the Hadith are the supposedly authoritative recollections of Mohammed's companions about his other teaching which is not found in the Koran.

[Ksa]

^ I don't know I'm just thinking ^>^

Since the Qur'an is so ambiguous about everything else except the resurrection, maybe it was common knowledge back then that it was all made up lol.

[Aractus]

That agreed Quirinius census was in 6 CE. “Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around AD 6.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_Galilee

Let me explain again. In Acts, Luke refers to "the time of the census" and the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that this refers to the 6AD census, that we all agree upon. In his gospel, however, he uses very different language and scholars are split on how to interoperates it. Some believe, as you do, that he is talking about the 6AD census - however that is not possible. Also, all the dates that Jesus could have died on - even including Friday and Wednesday crucifixion days - end at 34AD. Therefore, Luke would have known that Christ is crucified in either 31AD, 32AD, 33AD or 34AD - and he probably knew exactly when it was. a 6AD birth would have meant that Jesus (and John the Baptist for that matter) couldn't have begun their ministries until 36AD or later!

I haven't solved it, nor do I claim to have, but I do discount the two possibilities that: 1. Luke was referring to the 6AD census, and 2. that Luke invented the story.

Where is the external evidence of a Quirinius census in Judea prior to 6 CE, and even before Herod’s death in 4 BCE so that Herod had time to meet with the Magi? The context for the Lukan invention is to set the stage for a ridiculous, unnecessary-anyway Bethlehem trip and a birth in the city of David, to justify a baloney prediction. Your “internal evidence” is not proven to be other than a fiction. See also next, which you ignored.

Irrelevant. If I write a computer program, compile it and send it to you, I can then claim to you that it has 1,000 lines of code, or that it has 10,000 lines of code and would not be able to prove whether I'm lying about the number or not, even if you ran it through a dissembler.

I left my whole argument in place (the "RC:" just above) since you failed to comment on it. As for the Magi, who cares in which gospel they only appear?

I did respond to your argument. And as for whether I care about how many books the Magi are in, of course i care because you got your facts wrong. It makes no difference where they visit Jesus because they do not go to the birthplace. They could have visited him on the road to Domascus, they could have visited him at the temple at the time of his anointing, they could have visited him anywhere, at any time, it makes no difference. And by the way:

Finally, the Magi in the other NT Bethlehem story came to a house, not a manger. Where did the house come from, and if it existed why did they stay in a manger?

Why do you keep saying "manger", and why do you claim that they stayed in a "manger"?? Do you use this word in daily life, or are you using it because you don't know what it means?

Of course the Magi didn’t come to the fictional birthplace-in-manger, they came to the fictional house.

Why would someone invent the birth being in a feeding trough?

So, how can the two fictions be reconciled as truth? Is Luke’s contrived Bethlehem/manger story true, or is Matt’s contrived Magi/house story true, or are neither true? Sort of like the two genealogies, in that both cannot be true, at least one is false. What does this say about the truthiness of the gospels?

For a start, they probably only stayed in the barn for a single day. That's right, they stayed in the barn, that had a feeding trough inside it, they didn't stay in the trough!!

You are wrong for the most part. There is a male version of almah, “elem” = "young man", which appears at least twice in Samuel. There is no male equivalent for “betulah”, which is undeniably a physical virgin. That alone should be conclusive. The translation “young woman” proves the only defensible one anyway, see next.

Are you a Hebrew scholar?

Betulah is the Hebrew word for virgin, where the context of youth and maritial status is not appropriate. For instance, if you are talking about if she was a virgin on her wedding night, that's the word you'd use. Almah means young unmarried woman, it doesn't convey the meaning of prostitute, whore etc, and it is used when the context of virginity is appropriate. So, you wouldn't use it for a young unmarried woman who is a whore or a prostitute, or otherwise a non-virgin. Thus, the literal meaning is "young maiden" but the meaning of virginity is implied.

Furthermore, two different translators translate it as virgin - Matthew in his gospel, and whoever wrote the LXX translation of Isaiah. Both were done independently to each other!!

If you are this confident then find me an example of where almah is used without the implied virginity?

This is text-mining, taking snippets out of context. Also shows that you apparently do not know Hebrew. The context is clear if you read the whole section, not just your snippet. The prophet is talking about an upcoming invasion, doom, to the king. The transliteration of the mistranslated Hebrew is “hineh ha’almah harah”. The translation unquestionably (given the context) is “Here is a young woman, [she is] pregnant”. If it were future tense, “she will become pregnant”, the Hebrew should be something like “ye’hareh”.

No, I can't read Hebrew. And as for your claim, if you really know Hebrew then you'd have no problem translating this entire page into Hebrew, correct?

Now you do: [David’s] reign over Judah c. 1010–1002 BC, and his reign over the United Kingdom of Israel c. 1002–970 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

Pfft, you like to pick-and choose your facts, don't you? David lived at least 1,000 years prior to Christ, that much we'll agree upon.

RC: I got numbers only from external, independent history and the phony NT genealogies as-written, not from any bodily orifice of mine. I did have to infer a value for standard deviation, but it seems reasonable; if you don’t like it, choose another when you calculate your own t-statistic and refer to your own table of t-values. I am proving the NT is not reliable as a source of the genealogical information that you insist elsewhere (without proof, as always) was readily available. The gospeler’s fact-checker went to sleep? That’s not a way to gain credence if the other story can recall and relate 50 generations.

Let me re-state. You are assuming that both genealogies are complete, and you are assuming that neither could represent Mary.

What benefit is there to relating but 25 of 50? If skipping is allowed, why did he not simply say, “David begat Solomon, and then there were a bunch of others, and then somebody begat Joseph, the father of Jesus”? Skipping a few or skipping all have exactly the same value in conveying the story, and the latter wastes less parchment.

Because Matthew organizes his into categories. Therefore, he had to have skipped generations. Also, from Abraham to David both are identical.

Even if neither represents Mary, the two different genealogies are still possible. It would simply mean that given the correct time-frame, say 2,000 years not 1,000, that Matthew and Luke skipped over generations that the other didn't, and one of them may have done so intentionally to make theirs different. Eg, Luke may have researched it himself, written it down differently to prove that he didn't simply copy from Matthew.

I'm sorry, but your lack of compelling evidence isn't in your favour.

Please tell me which “key facts” I needed to ignore. Your reply is void of specifics.

All you've been doing, the entire time, is assuming that all the gospel writers are willingly lying about the death of Jesus - why would they lie about it? I'm not talking about the resurrection, I'm talking about the death with all the non-supernatural facts that were recorded - why would they be invented? Did they know the specific questions that would be asked 1,800-2,000 years later? That in itself would be quite miraculous!

What is your source for the above? I have participated in seders (pl. sedarim), as you might imagine. Have you ever read through a Hagadah? For centuries, if not millennia, there has been a great deal more to the seder than lamb. Seder means “order”, and it is a ceremonial comprised of symbols/meal/prayer/Exodus-story-relating. I’d be curious to know where you obtained accurate information about the seder meal and related activities at the time of Jesus or close to it. For one thing, I’m not aware that blood was put on any doorpost then; rather, the mezuzah with its Torah quotes is the symbolic replacement of that blood, still used today. The NT is of course not acceptable as such a source.

See what I mean about the assumptions you make? Where in the Gospels does it say that Jesus had a Lamb at their "passover" meal? It also doesn't say that he didn't - so either is possible, and then with John pinning down the date, we have to accept from the written records that Jesus eats the meal, referred to as a passover meal, in the evening on the 14th, which precludes the possibility that there would have been a lamb.

A further theological-contrivance note: … [U]nder Jewish law the lambs sacrificed at Passover had nothing to do with atonement for sin, but were in remembrance of the Exodus … The sin-atonement with which this [was] conflated was at the Day of Atonement, … one goat was loaded up with the sins of the people (the “scapegoat”) and sent into the wilderness.

You're only half-right about that, and I don't have time to explain it to you. There were two sacrificial lambs - one that each family would sacrifice, and then the one that would be the atonement and sent to the wilderness for the whole of Israel. The unleavened bread represents both the freedom from slavery and atonement for sin during the period.