Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(28-10-2012 08:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(27-10-2012 07:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes and no. They were "assembled" during and after the Exile. My next task will be to explain, in another thread when and how the OT texts first appeared. The OT first appeared in human history when the SCRIBE, (ie WRITER), (cough cough Big Grin), Ezra arrived back from the Exile with two things in his hands, in 348 BCE. (Do you understand what that means ? The Essene community WAS already in place !!!)
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...Scribe.htm Anyway the two texts he had were : (ie the Bible was assembled in Babylon as a political *plan* to unify the re-forming nation, and "give it a history", and set of laws.)
1. A letter from King (Emperor) Artaxerxes of Babylon giving himself and the King Nehemiah the rights and power to form and rule over the reconstituted nation of Israel, post Exile, FOR, or in place of the emperor. (Only *some* of the upper class natives had been dragged off into Exile). Some were still living where they had been, and the power over them ALL had to be "taken", or recovered when they got back.
2. The other thing he had in his hand was the Torah, (scroll) of Moses.
348 is VERY late in the history of a nation people think of as being thousands of years old. It was NOT. But it's a long story, for another thread.
Briefly, when they were in exile the scribes and Judean priests took previously extant torahs, one a scroll from the Southern kingdom, which we call "J", (for Jahwist) which represented the interests of the Jerusalem priests, and a scroll from the old Northern kingdom called "E", (for Elohist), which represented the traditions and interests of the Northern priests from Shiloh, and Dan, and Beth-el, combined them, and added a new set of materials from Babylon, which he got FROM Sumeria, and then added his OWN stuff, called "P", for Priestly, and the combo is today called the Torah of Moses, or the Pentateuch. He appropriated the prior mythological status of Moses, (form ONE of the sources), slapped it onto his texts as "author" to give it "authority", and presented it to the Hebrews in a Fall festival in a known historical year, on the river bank, in a great joyous festival .... "oh, look what we found". Yeah right. They made it appear, by many lies, and biased statements which I will point out in the next thread, that the old Northern priests were evil, (the Aronnaic priests), and the Southern priests, (from Jerusalem) were the authentic priestly tradition. (This "assembly" is known in Biblical scholarship, as the "Documentary Hypothesis", and while there are some discussions about how it was done exactly, there is NO serious objection to it, even by the MOST conservative (real) scholars. Nor has there been for at least 75-100 years. Only the MOST fanatical fundies deny it, in the face of mountains of evidence).
So there's my teaser. Tongue

No. No hell. If Paul had a sense of hell it would have been Sheol, the Jewish "pit", (as in "going down into the pit"), or underworld, similar to the Greek Hades. No fire. The "hellfire" was added later, which came from the "fires of Gehenna", or the constantly burning trash dump outside Jerusalem, where the animal carcasses, and trash was burned, and children were occasionally sacrificed. Paul was a Jew. He did not believe in hell. Not only that, he only believed in immortality for those who were going to be resurrected with Jeebus. See the above. Jeebus was a "martyr"in the Maccabean "martyr" tradition. He was "granted" *Babe Ruth* type "immortal status", "mythical famous status", or the "status of a legend", or "legendary" status, because he died for his cause...not because he or anyone had a "life after death". There was no need for hell, if there was no immortality for everyone. The idea that hell always existed in Christianity is another massive fraud, perpetrated by Christianity. Jeebus never said HE thought there was one, and Paul and the early Christians, (being Jews) also did not.

Hey...thanks for all that.

I gotta question one of your comments though. I think Jeebus (at least the one in Matthew) did mention hell....

Jesus said, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!..woe to you, blind guides…You blind fools!…You blind men!…You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matt. 23:13–34, NJB).
“Well then, just as the darnel is gathered up and burnt in the fire, so it will be at the end of time. The Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that provoke offences and all who do evil, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth” (Matt. 13:40–43, NJB).
“Next he will say to those on his left hand ‘Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’’’ (Matt. 25:41, NJB).

Agree. I meant no *hell* in Paul. I'll explain why it appears in Matthew shortly.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 07:03 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Hey...I just had another read of this excellent post from Bucky.

As with most of Bucky's long posts, on the third time you read them, you really start to "get it"

Or maybe I'm just slow.

This post didn't get the attention it deserves.

Thanks, Bucky, for the work you put in.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 10:05 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
It's an interesting post, Bucky, but wrong.

It isn't merely assumed that Jesus "rose" from the dead in a "resurrection" because of the words used, but because that's the only way to make sense of the angels/men that told the women that "He is not here", followed by Jesus' re-appearance to witnesses after his clear "death event". The context in every gospel makes it clear that Jesus died and then returned from the dead.

He is also the "son" in a biological sense because God is often called his "father", as in the Lord's Prayer.

Lastly, there's a good reason why Humpty Dumpty is assumed to be an egg. The poem about him is a riddle, and there are a few clues in it. #1, Humpty Dumpty is something which can sit in one place, and also #2 fall after sitting in one place (perhaps from a breeze that blew him off). #3 He couldn't be repaired with "all the king's horses" (a metaphor for glue, which is made from horses) or "all the king's men" (experts, perhaps) because a broken egg cannot be repaired. This was, perhaps, a bad analogy.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 10:49 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2013 11:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(08-05-2013 10:05 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's an interesting post, Bucky, but wrong.

It isn't merely assumed that Jesus "rose" from the dead in a "resurrection" because of the words used, but because that's the only way to make sense of the angels/men that told the women that "He is not here", followed by Jesus' re-appearance to witnesses after his clear "death event". The context in every gospel makes it clear that Jesus died and then returned from the dead.

He is also the "son" in a biological sense because God is often called his "father", as in the Lord's Prayer.

Lastly, there's a good reason why Humpty Dumpty is assumed to be an egg. The poem about him is a riddle, and there are a few clues in it. #1, Humpty Dumpty is something which can sit in one place, and also #2 fall after sitting in one place (perhaps from a breeze that blew him off). #3 He couldn't be repaired with "all the king's horses" (a metaphor for glue, which is made from horses) or "all the king's men" (experts, perhaps) because a broken egg cannot be repaired. This was, perhaps, a bad analogy.

Tell that to Dr. B.B. Scott. He's the foremost authority on it, in the country. You refuted none of the actual points, regarding the use of the language. You assume what you assume, because you've never heard about it in any other context. Just like you had so much trouble with the garden story. The gospels say they did not recognize him, and that they were afraid of what they saw. That is no normal physical body/resurrection. In the context of Hebrew culture, as the post above points out, it makes no sense. The title, "son of god" was NOT a "biological one". It was a general honorific title, which many people had, and were given. Your opinion may be that's it's wrong. You have not demonstrated it to be so. Paul was written first. Thus it's irrelevant what the gospels say. The earliest texts are from Paul, and you have refuted none of what I said about him, or the context of Hebrew culture. BTW, Jebus told them ALL to pray "Our Father". Were they ALL his "biological children" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 05:32 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(08-05-2013 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tell that to Dr. B.B. Scott. He's the foremost authority on it, in the country.You refuted none of the actual points, regarding the use of the language. You assume what you assume, because you've never heard about it in any other context. Just like you had so much trouble with the garden story. The gospels say they did not recognize him, and that they were afraid of what they saw. That is no normal physical body/resurrection. In the context of Hebrew culture, as the post above points out, it makes no sense. The title, "son of god" was NOT a "biological one". It was a general honorific title, which many people had, and were given. Your opinion may be that's it's wrong. You have not demonstrated it to be so. Paul was written first. Thus it's irrelevant what the gospels say. The earliest texts are from Paul, and you have refuted none of what I said about him, or the context of Hebrew culture. BTW, Jebus told them ALL to pray "Our Father". Were they ALL his "biological children" ?

Arguing that "Dr. B. B. Scott" disagrees with me is an appeal to authority. Even experts can be wrong, which is why such an appeal is fallacious.

I didn't "assume what I assume" because I've always seen it this way ("you've never heard about it in any other context"). As an atheist, I have no motive to see the NT as written correctly or accurately. The case that you presented argued that the words used to describe the resurrection of Jesus didn't mean a physical resurrection, but that the stories told about the "resurrection" made it clear that the gospel writers were writing about a physical resurrection, about a body that was no longer in the tomb and re-animated in the flesh (such as in the story of Thomas feeling the holes in Jesus' hands). While you have a point about the disciples not recognizing Jesus, that doesn't prove that he came back as a non-physical entity, either. In order to "recognize" or "not recognize" someone, they still have to be seen with the eyes of the beholder, do they not?

I already read your point about "son" being an honorific title, but just because you don't agree with my point doesn't mean that I didn't make one. I argued that God is called "the father" several times, and consistently. This makes more sense from the point of view that God is seen as Jesus' father (in a sense that we know). John 3:16 makes the point of Jesus being the "only" son of God, which doesn't imply an honorific title. In other parts of the gospels, Jesus refers to do the will of "my" father, rather than "the" father or "a" father (the first link may clarify the "our father" bit).

To be fair, there is no way in which an actual biological relationship between Jesus and God makes sense -- it's not as if God passed his DNA on to Jesus. But there are a lot of parts in the text where it doesn't make sense to see these are mere titles. And also to be fair, there are some parts in the text where it makes more sense to see it as an honorific, but you can't cherry-pick and claim that it all fits your view. The bible is contradictory in many ways, and this is yet another thing that is contradictory.

Finally, you can't claim that the gospels are irrelevant just because Paul's writings came first. Seriously, who even commits the fallacy of Chronological snobbery?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 07:17 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2013 07:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(09-05-2013 05:32 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(08-05-2013 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tell that to Dr. B.B. Scott. He's the foremost authority on it, in the country.You refuted none of the actual points, regarding the use of the language. You assume what you assume, because you've never heard about it in any other context. Just like you had so much trouble with the garden story. The gospels say they did not recognize him, and that they were afraid of what they saw. That is no normal physical body/resurrection. In the context of Hebrew culture, as the post above points out, it makes no sense. The title, "son of god" was NOT a "biological one". It was a general honorific title, which many people had, and were given. Your opinion may be that's it's wrong. You have not demonstrated it to be so. Paul was written first. Thus it's irrelevant what the gospels say. The earliest texts are from Paul, and you have refuted none of what I said about him, or the context of Hebrew culture. BTW, Jebus told them ALL to pray "Our Father". Were they ALL his "biological children" ?

Arguing that "Dr. B. B. Scott" disagrees with me is an appeal to authority. Even experts can be wrong, which is why such an appeal is fallacious.

I didn't "assume what I assume" because I've always seen it this way ("you've never heard about it in any other context"). As an atheist, I have no motive to see the NT as written correctly or accurately. The case that you presented argued that the words used to describe the resurrection of Jesus didn't mean a physical resurrection, but that the stories told about the "resurrection" made it clear that the gospel writers were writing about a physical resurrection, about a body that was no longer in the tomb and re-animated in the flesh (such as in the story of Thomas feeling the holes in Jesus' hands). While you have a point about the disciples not recognizing Jesus, that doesn't prove that he came back as a non-physical entity, either. In order to "recognize" or "not recognize" someone, they still have to be seen with the eyes of the beholder, do they not?

I already read your point about "son" being an honorific title, but just because you don't agree with my point doesn't mean that I didn't make one. I argued that God is called "the father" several times, and consistently. This makes more sense from the point of view that God is seen as Jesus' father (in a sense that we know). John 3:16 makes the point of Jesus being the "only" son of God, which doesn't imply an honorific title. In other parts of the gospels, Jesus refers to do the will of "my" father, rather than "the" father or "a" father (the first link may clarify the "our father" bit).

To be fair, there is no way in which an actual biological relationship between Jesus and God makes sense -- it's not as if God passed his DNA on to Jesus. But there are a lot of parts in the text where it doesn't make sense to see these are mere titles. And also to be fair, there are some parts in the text where it makes more sense to see it as an honorific, but you can't cherry-pick and claim that it all fits your view. The bible is contradictory in many ways, and this is yet another thing that is contradictory.

Finally, you can't claim that the gospels are irrelevant just because Paul's writings came first. Seriously, who even commits the fallacy of Chronological snobbery?
It's not wrong cuz you say it's wrong. You have not demonstrated where or why it's wrong ... yet anyway.
The argument from authority is a fallacy ONLY if the argument lies outside the mainstream of the authority on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
This argument has many adherents in the authoritative camp, thus this does not meet the criteria for fallacy. There are many scholars, including many (JD Crossan's camp) from the Jesus Seminar who agree with this position. Paul IS important as he was written 1st, and LONG before the gospels. I merely suggested there was another way to look at the whole thing, other than the simple-minded literal, 21st Century, reading, such as you do. Paul was written 100 years BEFORE the gospels. Nothing has been refuted in the language and general culture, as presented. I do realize that many atheists have a great deal invested in a simple-minded, literal Sunday-school reading of ancient texts.
Re: the "father" business, What "makes sense" to someone today, is not the point. It's called "Presentism", another fallacy and is just as wrong and fallacious. That's NOT what the word meant in that day, thus one cannot slap a modern meaning on it. It is incumbent to find out what it meant in THAT day. Many people were called sons of god ... politicians, priests, athletes, famous people etc etc. What the authors/editors of John say was written MUCH later, AFTER the theology had many more years to develop, AND it was written from a Greek Gnostic perspective. Thus the point is not taken. Equality, in any way, with Yahweh, (son or not) was unthinkable for a Jew. It was blasphemy. The entire "divinity" business of Jebus was a LONG developed process, different in every gospel, and we KNOW it did not equate with the divinity of Yahweh. The first gospel (Mark) had no resurrection. Clearly the whole business developed from nothing to a big deal, over a few hundred years, and had many meanings to many people. There is no *one* meaning, however much someone would wish that to be true.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 09:10 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
The myth of the Resurrection isn't all that original, actually.

Just as ancient scribes sought to laud their kings and sing of (exaggerated) great works, so too did any god worth his salt have to do at least as well as his competition.

Early Christianity either had to be as good as, or better, than the religions of the time or it would never have grown as it did.

Thus, it had to co-opt the prevalent Roman faith of Mithraism (imported from Persia), or else it would not even appeal to the Jews of the time, much less the pagan gentiles:

Mithras promised eternal life in his kingdom to his followers.
Mithras was born of a virgin.
Mithras was born on December 25.
Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.
Mithras performed miracles.
Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.
Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days.
Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day” because Mithraism was a sun religion.
Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.
On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

All of this predated Jesus by 1400 years.

Jesus' message that set him apart from Mithras was universal love and brotherhood - a very appealing message in a time of brutality and brief lives.

While I read the OP with interest, I don't think it's nearly that complicated. Christianity was founded on derivative myths and, 2000 years later has been accepted by millions of people as literal truth.

It's anything but.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ethan66's post
09-05-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(09-05-2013 09:10 AM)ethan66 Wrote:  The myth of the Resurrection isn't all that original, actually.

Just as ancient scribes sought to laud their kings and sing of (exaggerated) great works, so too did any god worth his salt have to do at least as well as his competition.

Early Christianity either had to be as good as, or better, than the religions of the time or it would never have grown as it did.

Thus, it had to co-opt the prevalent Roman faith of Mithraism (imported from Persia), or else it would not even appeal to the Jews of the time, much less the pagan gentiles:

Mithras promised eternal life in his kingdom to his followers.
Mithras was born of a virgin.
Mithras was born on December 25.
Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.
Mithras performed miracles.
Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.
Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days.
Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day” because Mithraism was a sun religion.
Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.
On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

All of this predated Jesus by 1400 years.

Jesus' message that set him apart from Mithras was universal love and brotherhood - a very appealing message in a time of brutality and brief lives.

While I read the OP with interest, I don't think it's nearly that complicated. Christianity was founded on derivative myths and, 2000 years later has been accepted by millions of people as literal truth.

It's anything but.
Hmm, I think that some of the similarities b/t mithraism and Christianity you mention may not be true. I am no scholar but going to such places as Wiki gets you that Mithras was born from a rock not of a virgin and I've seen in other places that the dates were fit in afterward. If you have good sources for the above, I'd love to read them as it is quite interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes devilsadvoc8's post
09-05-2013, 10:19 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(09-05-2013 05:32 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Arguing that "Dr. B. B. Scott" disagrees with me is an appeal to authority.

What, it doesn't happen? Last time I checked, such a fallacy ain't entirely fallacious. Experts are there to fall. I'm an expert - prophet - I think yer both wrong.

But I definitely appreciate the effort Bucky puts into his scholarship.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(09-05-2013 09:55 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Hmm, I think that some of the similarities b/t mithraism and Christianity you mention may not be true. I am no scholar but going to such places as Wiki gets you that Mithras was born from a rock not of a virgin and I've seen in other places that the dates were fit in afterward. If you have good sources for the above, I'd love to read them as it is quite interesting.

I did not refer to Wiki at all. The points in my post are cross-supported from a number of sources, both written and internet.

Here's one reliable-looking source on Mithraism, from David Ulansey "Cosmic Mysteries of Mithras":

Quote:If Mithras was in fact believed to be capable of moving the entire universe, then he must have been understood as in some sense residing outside of the cosmos. This idea may help us to understand another very common Mithraic iconographical motif: namely, the so-called "rock-birth" of Mithras. This scene shows Mithras emerging from the top of a roughly spherical or egg-shaped rock, which is usually depicted with a snake entwined around it.

As I mentioned previously, the tauroctony depicts the bull-slaying as taking place inside a cave, and the Mithraic temples were built in imitation of caves. But caves are precisely hollows within the rocky earth, which suggests that the rock from which Mithras is born is meant to represent the Mithraic cave as seen from the outside. Now as we saw earlier, the ancient author Porphyry records the tradition that the Mithraic cave was intended to be "an image of the cosmos." Of course, the hollow cave would have to be an image of the cosmos as seen from the inside, looking out at the enclosing, cave-like sphere of the stars. But if the cave symbolizes the cosmos as seen from the inside, it follows that the rock out of which Mithras is born must ultimately be a symbol for the cosmos as seen from the outside. This idea is not as abstract as might first appear, for artistic representations of the cosmos as seen from the outside were in fact very common in antiquity. A famous example is the "Atlas Farnese" statue, showing Atlas bearing on his shoulder the cosmic globe, on which are depicted the constellations as they would appear from an imaginary vantage point outside of the universe.

Mithraism isn't immune to the mutations suffered by any religion - especially ancient ones which relied upon word of mouth as much as written script. Every religion has its mythical mutations, including Christianity.

In other words, Mithras was not born of a mother. Neither, myth would tell us, were Horus, Jesus, Marduk, Krishna, Codom, and so on. My point being that in order for Christianity to compete with the legends of other religions, it had to begin at the very basic step of following a demi-god born of a virgin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: