Life after death?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Paul based his argument for believing in his doctrine on the promise that all converts could be resurrected just as Jesus had been. It was a common Pharisee belief.

The Pharisees killed Jesus.

If Jesus was killed why didn't he stay dead? If you return to life and hang out with your buddies on fishing trips were you ever really dead?

How did all of those corpses pop out of their graves and go visit their buddies in Jerusalem? Imagine how much people were surprised when someone they had buried years ago showed up on their doorsteps, looking very dead indeed and stinking like it. I'll bet that the people are still going through purifications rituals after 2,000 years.

[ignoramus]

Just to chime in once again.
I used to argue with friends when I was young that if Jesus was the true son of god, then he wasn't a great man.
He was just a supernatural being doing what he was put here to do.
If, on the other hand, he was just a bloke trying to help others, then he should be remembered for that.

This of course also implies that he did not perform any miracles.

While I remember, and speaking of resurrection, there are so many tell tale signs relating to religious stories and depictions that makes it extremely obvious that the bible was made up entirely by man.

Just stupid little things like old paintings of Adam and Eve with belly buttons, spirits rising from the dead.
I mean, hasn't the spirit already left the body before the carcass is buried?
It's just that religious people think that god needs to live up in the clouds,which is where "rise" comes from.
Now that space has been understood, there's nothing mysterious or spooky about it.

So basically, most interpretations of the Bible, Quran, etc, are like watching a Cecil DeMille movie now.
Time for bible 2.0 in my opinion. Start by pissing off the old testament. That's just "comedy capers".

[Purplundy]

If Jesus was killed why didn't he stay dead? If you return to life and hang out with your buddies on fishing trips were you ever really dead?

I've never understood this argument. Of course, we haven't seen anyone come back from the dead before, so this is harder to argue, but, according to the account, Jesus was whipped, carried a cross through Jerusalem, suffocated on the cross, and was stabbed in the side. This usually is pretty effective at killing people.
Three days later, he came back, or so it is written, with holes in his hands and feet. Is his crucifixion somehow nullified because he's breathing again?
If a scar heals, does it mean that you were never scarred?

[Ravenshire]

Is his crucifixion somehow nullified because he's breathing again?

Yes, it is. Not because he's no longer dead, but because he knew beforehand that it would be temporary. A father who steps in front a bullet aimed at his child is making a far greater sacrifice than jeebus supposedly made because he knows if the bullet kills him there's no coming back.

People die for each other on an alarmingly regular basis. The best you're gawd-boy could do was inconvenience himself for a few days.

Sacrifice? My ass!

[Purplundy]

Yes, it is. Not because he's no longer dead, but because he knew beforehand that it would be temporary.

First of all, the argument was about whether or not he had actually died, but let's talk about the sacrifice.
True, believing that one's death is permanent was not a sacrifice that Jesus had to make. It's perfectly plausible to experience worse things than Jesus did.
But that's not my point. Maybe Jesus didn't feel the pain of never being able to see his disciples again.
He just felt everything else.
To say that there was absolutely no sacrifice is false because he was killed on the behalf of his cause. He was whipped, carried the cross, and died on it. He just wasn't thinking about how he was never going to fish again.
So this is more like a dad taking a bullet to the knee for his son, limping to a hospital, and having it yanked out with tweezers.

[Bibliofagus]

From carpenter to ultimate ruler of the universe. The greatest sacrifice ever.

[Ravenshire]

So this is more like a dad taking a bullet to the knee for his son, limping to a hospital, and having it yanked out with tweezers.

No, really it's more like getting his toe stepped on while pushing a clumsy drunk away from his kid then getting "steak and blowjob" day from his wife for being such a "hero"

Jeebus never had to face the fear of death. Knowing he would come out the other side inheritor of the kingdom of gawd is not a sacrifice. It's the moral equivalent of a multi-millionaire giving one dollar to charity.

From carpenter to ultimate ruler of the universe. The greatest sacrifice ever.

Exactly!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Ref: Post #132: Since Adam & Eve lived right down the road from Cush and Assyria and their people why wouldn't they have belly buttons? They weren't made from trees.

The dummy who wrote the Adam & Eve story must have been on some powerful drugs because he hosed it all up. Adam & Eve were supposed to have been the first Jews who founded the line that led to Jesus. Then other story-tellers came in with the Abraham clan and Moses and the creation of Judaism. The story got so cluttered that Paul supposedly said: screw the genealogies and I'll just say that Jesus was the last Adam and make him a priest of the Salem priest Melchizedek, who conned Abraham out of 10 percent of his loot.

[naturestubbs1]

I can't help but think that if we looked at the average "worldly" knowledge of a full-grown forty year-old (a senior citizen back then by the way) two thousand years ago that it would be on the level of a modern day second grader. We have grown so much in our intelligence as a species that we need to just acknowledge that these books are important part of literature (and to a much lesser extent history) and MOVE ON. Any modern day human that can't come to their own conclusions about the supposed supernatural events in what certainly was, for the most part, an oral tradition needs to be pointed to a book club and dismissed.

[Whateverist]

Well if the way you interpret the story is as flexible as all that, then just how do you 'hold' your faith? Is it all wisdom stories and parables with those who recognize them as such keeping it on the down-low? I think many clergymen loose the literal beliefs but stay in the community and to feel like the shepherd. I'm probably making too much of this.

No, you're making just enough out of this, and that is an important question that I need to answer.
I know that a Jesus figure did exist and certain people wrote about him.
Did he rise from the dead? I don't know, he hasn't proven that he did, to me anyways.
Worst case scenario: He didn't. His body decomposed and is humus on its way to the planet's core. That would be disappointing; he seemed like such a nice guy. But it has no effect on my life; the Christian practice of loving your neighbor is not affected by whether or not a Jew walked outside of a cave on Sunday morning. That doesn't even mean that what he taught was false; I'd still agree that we need to help the poor for reasons other than, "Jesus said so." To think otherwise would be an appeal to hypocrisy.
When I talk about Biblical events, I don't mean to say whether or not they happened. I'm just acknowledging that that is what somebody wrote down in a book.

Well then I have to push it if I'm to understand the shape of it (your faith). If the factuality of the resurrection is optional for you, what about an afterlife? Would an interpretation of heaven and hell which revolved around states of mind in the living rather than a perpetual extension of consciousness beyond the grave fit with your theology? If not, do you see it as a tenable position for anyone who wants to keep their seat under the Christian portion of the theist tent?