How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[xpastor]

Many would answer that it was borrowed from the Osiris myth.

Perhaps. However, I start from the premise that Yeshua was a historical figure, an itinerant rabbi with considerable rhetorical prowess, who got himself crucified by the Romans and remained dead.

So my answer is cognitive dissonance.

When people believe something intensely, and it fails to happen, they can't live with that. They have to invent a story to prove that it really did happen in an unexpected way.

We have seen this in the recent history of apocalyptic prophecy. William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844, and it obviously did not happen. The result was the birth of Seventh-Day Adventism, which "arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming." (Wikipedia) I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it satisfied them. Likewise, the first Jehovah's witnesses predicted that Jesus would return in 1914. When no one spotted him, they said he had returned "invisibly."

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet expecting the Son of Man to come and usher in the Kingdom of God within his own lifetime.

Of course he died without seeing any such event. I suppose his followers said things like, "I just can't believe he's gone." Denial is the start of the grief process. Given Jesus' very real abilities as a preacher and the credulous nature of the era, they never moved on to the later stages of grief. Someone came up with the idea that he must have risen from the dead, and then others started to fill in the details, that so-and-so had seen him post-crucifixion, that there were angels there, that he showed his wounds, that he had dinner with his associates, that he ascended into heaven.

Christians will protest that no one would make up the story of the resurrection, but they do in fact come up with all sorts of fictional details to promote their faith. To take a few trivial cases, I have received an email which presents the young Albert Einstein as a defender of the Christian faith against his atheistic professor although Einstein was a non-observant Jew who explicitly disavowed any belief in a personal God. Or there is Lady Hope's well-known story of Charles Darwin's deathbed reversion to Christianity, although Darwin's children say she was nowhere near the great scientist in his last years.

[DeistPaladin]

To those Christians who find it incredulous that anyone would have believed Jesus had risen from the dead if such an event hadn't take place, I have just one word:

"Elvis"

How long was he in the grave before urban legends were told about him faking his own death? How many testified to "Elvish sightings"? And he wasn't a religious icon promising the resurrection of the dead. He lived in the modern age and not the superstitious time of 1st century Judea.



Why is it then so impossible to believe that ignorant and superstitious people wouldn't start believing fanciful tales about Jesus rising from the grave?

[Captain Colostomy]

I can't fathom why it's so difficult for christians to understand how cognitive dissonance factors in. It's unrelated and mundane, but my own memories of the military, 20 years out, are a lot fonder than the reality. If a skeptical pessimist such as myself can see how easy memories can be shaped through time and will, imagining insanely fanciful stories evolving into 'gospel' is a no-brainer. Willful ignorance surely plays a hand.

[Clueless Morgan]

To those Christians who find it incredulous that anyone would have believed Jesus had risen from the dead if such an event hadn't take place, I have just one word:

"Elvis"

How long was he in the grave before urban legends were told about him faking his own death? How many testified to "Elvish sightings"? And he wasn't a religious icon promising the resurrection of the dead. He lived in the modern age and not the superstitious time of 1st century Judea.

---

---

Why is it then so impossible to believe that ignorant and superstitious people wouldn't start believing fanciful tales about Jesus rising from the grave?

My favorite part of the whole Elvis-Lives! myth is pointed out by Penn Jillette: Elvis's fried chicken recipe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f177k0ytA

[T.J.]

I read this whole post in Captain Picard's voice, thank you for your choice of avatar.

As for the topic, I wouldn't hazard a guess where the myth first started. I heard it said once that Christianity was a bastardization of all the other religions so it may have come from multiple myths are lumped together.

I'm familiar with the email you're talking about too. The one about brain and hot and cold? Saw plenty of people have fun ripping the arguments made in that one to pieces.

[Drich]

Many would answer that it was borrowed from the Osiris myth.

If 'they' did then it would be obvious they knew nothing of the mythos surrounding Osiris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

Perhaps. However, I start from the premise that Yeshua was a historical figure, an itinerant rabbi with considerable rhetorical prowess, who got himself crucified by the Romans and remained dead.

So my answer is cognitive dissonance.

do you have 'proof' for your answer?

When people believe something intensely, and it fails to happen, they can't live with that. They have to invent a story to prove that it really did happen in an unexpected way.

so... if the apstoles made up the resurrection of Christ then why wasn't is quickly squashed? The Jews knew that a bodily resurrection would confirm the Deity of Christ and therefore had Rome place an imperial seal on the tomb. A Broken seal meant the deaths of the contingent of soliders placed there to guard that seal

We have seen this in the recent history of apocalyptic prophecy. William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844, and it obviously did not happen. The result was the birth of Seventh-Day Adventism, which "arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming."

(Wikipedia) I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it satisfied them. Likewise, the first Jehovah's witnesses predicted that Jesus would return in 1914. When no one spotted him, they said he had returned "invisibly."

So?

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet expecting the Son of Man to come and usher in the Kingdom of God within his own lifetime.

proof?

Of course he died without seeing any such event.

How do you know what Christ saw?

I suppose his followers said things like, "I just can't believe he's gone."

Again proof?
How do you know what His followers said?

Denial is the start of the grief process. Given Jesus' very real abilities as a preacher and the credulous nature of the era, they never moved on to the later stages of grief. Someone came up with the idea that he must have risen from the dead, and then others started to fill in the details, that so-and-so had seen him post-crucifixion, that there were angels there, that he showed his wounds, that he had dinner with his associates, that he ascended into heaven.

Ok, ok let me catch my breath.. Oh, that line of reasoning kills me..

all right so let me out line your 'logic' for you. 'We' have a written record of what took place durning that time. Something you have cast doubt on and expressed several times you can not believe it often times sighting the lack of 'proof.' But, at the same time you have taken a measure of modern pop psycology Something that at best only describes the psychological nature of a 'modern' western person in a very general sense, and have applied it to the senerio outlined in the very same bible you have all but dismissed, and seriously present this argument of what you think happened in place of what the bible says happened... Cherry pick much? Maybe that is why you failed as a preacher. You take elements almost at random from modern times and from the bible and simply start combining whatever allows you to support your foregone conclusion.. In otherwords from the evidence you have left here you have come to the conclusion that Christ never resurrected Himself from the Dead. Then you took elements out of the Historical account of the bible and then you took just enough of pop psycology to support what you though, and have completely ignored the continuity Issues. In that pop psycology does not even represent the 'greiving' process of all currently known cultures, let alone span 2000 years and can be proven to be true about a middle eastern culture... Who's views of life and death are no where near our own. The fact that they had life and death gladiatorial tournments speaks to this. Yet you forced this conclusion because it makes 'sense' to you, allowing to completely ignore what is actually written.

Christians will protest that no one would make up the story of the resurrection, but they do in fact come up with all sorts of fictional details to promote their faith.

Me thinks someone is 'projecting' his process of faith onto everyone else.

To take a few trivial cases, I have received an email which presents the young Albert Einstein as a defender of the Christian faith against his atheistic professor although Einstein was a non-observant Jew who explicitly disavowed any belief in a personal God. Or there is Lady Hope's well-known story of Charles Darwin's deathbed reversion to Christianity, although Darwin's children say she was nowhere near the great scientist in his last years.

So what? Again just because there are people like you who first formulate a conclusion and then look to support it with 'evidence' (as apposed to simply following wherever the evidence leads them, and then compile it and formulate a conclusion based on what is available, thus remaining honest and true to the available facts) Does not mean everyone does this.

Again you whole argument rests on the idea that the men who lived in Israel 2000 years ago process grief the same way we do. That the culture wanted to accept Christ and change everything they knew for 3000 years prior to that moment in time. That these people did not were not the ones who turned Christ over to be crucified. That the masses who converted on the day of Pentecost who were all gathered to celibrate a Jewish holy-day were ready at the drop of a hat to turn their backs on the only religion they knew for the sake of 'greif?' or maybe because of some sort of peer pressure... Bullying maybe?

No. They saw something of God that day. Something that confirmed and cemented who God was and the direction God want them to go. They found the 'proof' that God has left for all of us, and were simply faithful to what God had given them.

[xpastor]

Many would answer that it was borrowed from the Osiris myth.

If 'they' did then it would be obvious they knew nothing of the mythos surrounding Osiris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

Not my theory as I made plain. However, Tom Harpur, one-time professor of New Testament Greek at Wycliffe College, sees the Jesus-figure of the gospels as a retelling of the archetype embodied in the Horus myth of ancient Egypt.

Perhaps. However, I start from the premise that Yeshua was a historical figure, an itinerant rabbi with considerable rhetorical prowess, who got himself crucified by the Romans and remained dead.

So my answer is cognitive dissonance.

do you have 'proof' for your answer?

I don't need to prove that he was a historical figure since that is accepted by those who would oppose my theory. Cognitive dissonance is a theory which is intended to explain the data. 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.

When people believe something intensely, and it fails to happen, they can't live with that. They have to invent a story to prove that it really did happen in an unexpected way.

so... if the apstoles made up the resurrection of Christ then why wasn't is quickly squashed? The Jews knew that a bodily resurrection would confirm the Deity of Christ and therefore had Rome place an imperial seal on the tomb. A Broken seal meant the deaths of the contingent of soliders placed there to guard that seal

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.

We have seen this in the recent history of apocalyptic prophecy. William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844, and it obviously did not happen. The result was the birth of Seventh-Day Adventism, which "arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming." (Wikipedia) I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it satisfied them. Likewise, the first Jehovah's witnesses predicted that Jesus would return in 1914. When no one spotted him, they said he had returned "invisibly."

So?

So it proves that people including Christians make up weird shit when their ideas get shot down.

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet expecting the Son of Man to come and usher in the Kingdom of God within his own lifetime.

proof?

29 “Soon after the trouble of those days, the sun will grow dark, the moon will no longer shine, the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers in space will be driven from their courses. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky; and all the peoples of earth will weep as they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 The great trumpet will sound, and he will send out his angels to the four corners of the earth, and they will gather his chosen people from one end of the world to the other. 32 “Let the fig tree teach you a lesson. When its branches become green and tender and it starts putting out leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 In the same way, when you see all these things, you will know that the time is near, ready to begin. 34 Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Sounds like a definite prophecy of the end of the world within that generation. Not to the day like William Miller or Harold Camping, but no wiggle room for stretching it out centuries into the future

Of course he died without seeing any such event.

How do you know what Christ saw?

Don't be so thick. The world is still here, ain't it? Ergo, Jesus did not see it end.

I suppose his followers said things like, "I just can't believe he's gone."

Again proof?
How do you know what His followers said?

What part of the verb "suppose" do you not understand?

all right so let me out line your 'logic' for you. 'We' have a written record of what took place durning that time. Something you have cast doubt on and expressed several times you can not believe it often times sighting the lack of 'proof.' But, at the same time you have taken a measure of modern pop psycology Something that at best only describes the psychological nature of a 'modern' western person in a very general sense, and have applied it to the senerio outlined in the very same bible you have all but dismissed, and seriously present this argument of what you think happened in place of what the bible says happened... Cherry pick much? Maybe that is why you failed as a preacher. You take elements almost at random from modern times and from the bible and simply start combining whatever allows you to support your foregone conclusion.. In otherwords from the evidence you have left here you have come to the conclusion that Christ never resurrected Himself from the Dead. Then you took elements out of the Historical account of the bible and then you took just enough of pop psycology to support what you though, and have completely ignored the continuity Issues. In that pop psycology does not even represent the 'greiving' process of all currently known cultures, let alone span 2000 years and can be proven to be true about a middle eastern culture... Who's views of life and death are no where near our own. The fact that they had life and death gladiatorial tournments speaks to this. Yet you forced this conclusion because it makes 'sense' to you, allowing to completely ignore what is actually written.

And what makes you an expert on the grief process in other cultures? I have read lots of ancient literature and the elegy grieving the loss of a loved person is a common form. What do gladitorial combats have to do with it? 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.

Christians will protest that no one would make up the story of the resurrection, but they do in fact come up with all sorts of fictional details to promote their faith.

Me thinks someone is 'projecting' his process of faith onto everyone else.

I can't make any sense out of what you are trying to say here.

To take a few trivial cases, I have received an email which presents the young Albert Einstein as a defender of the Christian faith against his atheistic professor although Einstein was a non-observant Jew who explicitly disavowed any belief in a personal God. Or there is Lady Hope's well-known story of Charles Darwin's deathbed reversion to Christianity, although Darwin's children say she was nowhere near the great scientist in his last years.

So what? Again just because there are people like you who first formulate a conclusion and then look to support it with 'evidence' (as apposed to simply following wherever the evidence leads them, and then compile it and formulate a conclusion based on what is available, thus remaining honest and true to the available facts) Does not mean everyone does this.

This goes to establish the existence of a genre I call "lying for Jesus" there are plenty of examples of it in the modern world and back through the ages, so I do not find it difficult to believe that it happened in the original writing of the NT. To be fair, maybe I should call it "self-deception for Jesus." The wack jobs who think that the Bush government orchestrated the 911 attacks sincerely believe their own crazy theories.

Again you whole argument rests on the idea that the men who lived in Israel 2000 years ago process grief the same way we do. That the culture wanted to accept Christ and change everything they knew for 3000 years prior to that moment in time. That these people did not were not the ones who turned Christ over to be crucified. That the masses who converted on the day of Pentecost who were all gathered to celibrate a Jewish holy-day were ready at the drop of a hat to turn their backs on the only religion they knew for the sake of 'greif?' or maybe because of some sort of peer pressure... Bullying maybe?

No. They saw something of God that day. Something that confirmed and cemented who God was and the direction God want them to go. They found the 'proof' that God has left for all of us, and were simply faithful to what God had given them.

I did not say that the later converts believed because of denial in the grief process. That, I suppose, happened with Jesus' followers. There are plenty of examples to show that once a person has adopted a delusional belief, he will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain that belief. So you had sincere believers preaching the resurrected Christ to the local population, need I add yet again, in what was a totally credulous era.

[Drich]

Not my theory as I made plain.

For the purpose of this discussion it is your theory as you are repersenting it, and two Tom's theory deals with Horus, yours deals with orsiris.

However, Tom Harpur, one-time professor of New Testament Greek at Wycliffe College, sees the Jesus-figure of the gospels as a retelling of the archetype embodied in the Horus myth of ancient Egypt.

Even this is exaggerated and overstated.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html

Perhaps. However, I start from the premise that Yeshua was a historical figure, an itinerant rabbi with considerable rhetorical prowess, who got himself crucified by the Romans and remained dead.

Do you have proof, or are we to simply take your beliefs on faith as you do?

I don't need to prove that he was a historical figure since that is accepted by those who would oppose my theory. Cognitive dissonance is a theory which is intended to explain the data.

Actually this is exactly where your theory fails. In order for your theory to work you must be able to demonstrate that people who lived 2000 years ago in a different culture, processed 'cognitive dissonance' the same way modern western soceity does. You simply assume that everyone who has ever lived processes emotion as this culture in this time does. I pointed out that even people of other cultures living in this time do not process grief, dread, frustration, guilt or any of the other emotions that contribute to the dis-equaliubrim, needed to trigger 'cognitive dissonance' you have tried to force onto this culture.

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.

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.

29 “Soon after the trouble of those days, the sun will grow dark, the moon will no longer shine, the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers in space will be driven from their courses. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky; and all the peoples of earth will weep as they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 The great trumpet will sound, and he will send out his angels to the four corners of the earth, and they will gather his chosen people from one end of the world to the other. 32 “Let the fig tree teach you a lesson. When its branches become green and tender and it starts putting out leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 In the same way, when you see all these things, you will know that the time is near, ready to begin. 34 [i]Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died.[/i] 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

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

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.

And what makes you an expert on the grief process in other cultures?

I grew up in a house hold that strattled two very different cultures, and I saw the importance my dads culture (western soceity) placed on stupid things, and took great offence when stupid things like their version of 'table manners' were not observed. Or the members of my mom's family took great offense when one did not observe their trivial traditions like take off ones shoes when you entered the house. I also watched how my grand parents died on both sides and while both funerals were held here, there were two totally different experiences. one was what you would expect to see while the others made the 'americans' feel uncomfortable and even offended in some aspects.

I have read lots of ancient literature and the elegy grieving the loss of a loved person is a common form.

Then I do not need to explain to you that grief was indeed felt, but death for the devoute jew was not an end of the world event as it is now in this culture.

What do gladitorial combats have to do with it?

Don't be thick. It means that, their whole soceity did not view death as we do. That blood lust was the norm and even though slaves, and prisioners were apart of those who died. There were a whole class of men who fought and died for the prestege and honor it brought. This mind set in a soceity should tell any common sense having person that 'death' was not feared in that soceity as it is in this one.
Rome slaugtered everyone and everything, to us there is no greater crime. To them it was life, and death. This fact changes the nature of the need for 'cognitive dissonance' on the scale we are talking to trigger a religion that would last 2000 years.

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?

I did not say that the later converts believed because of denial in the grief process. That, I suppose, happened with Jesus' followers. There are plenty of examples to show that once a person has adopted a delusional belief, he will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain that belief. So you had sincere believers preaching the resurrected Christ to the local population, need I add yet again, in what was a totally credulous era.

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.

[Minimalist]

why didn't they have the deciples killed if they thought them to be blasphomous heritics?

Because there weren't any disciples. They were a later addition to the story.

[Drich]

why didn't they have the deciples killed if they thought them to be blasphomous heritics?

Because there weren't any disciples. They were a later addition to the story.

proof? or am I to simply have faith in your word?