Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2013, 10:41 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2013 01:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
I am well aware that dying and rising gods were a dime a dozen.
"Sons of the gods" were also ubiquitous, (including the Roman emperor).
This one was hardly unique. None of the others had actual physical bodies reported.
I simply showed that the Hebrew one had nuances that are not obvious, necessarily, to us from that culture. Being "granted immortality" to Saul of Tarsus, (a Jew), did not mean given a physical *new* body, or even the old one. It simply did not mean that in that culture. Simon of Perea, another "messiah", from earlier that century was probably where they got most of what ended up in the gospels re dying and rising. Obviously if "rising" meant "permanent physical resurrection', all the others in Matthew that rose with Jebus would have to be accounted for. They were not. Matthew also said when they saw him, they "were afraid, and they doubted, but believed". If they were seeing a real normal physical body, that would not be the case. Obviously it meant something else, as it did to Thomas who, even seeing, still doubted, until he did the finger thing. If it was a physical body, he would have recognized him, as would the disciples on the Road to Emmaus. They didn't.

The whole business had a long development period. Taking the latest piece of lit concerning it (John), and slapping that meaning onto all of them, assuming they all meant the same thing, is just not warranted.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-05-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(09-05-2013 10:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I am well aware that dying and rising gods were a dime a dozen.
"Sons of the gods" were also ubiquitous, (including the Roman emperor).
This one was hardly unique. None of the others had actual physical bodies reported.
I simply showed that the Hebrew one had nuances that are not obvious, necessarily, to us from that culture. Being "granted immortality" to Saul of Tarsus, (a Jew), did not mean given a physical *new* body, or even the old one. It simply did not mean that in that culture. Simon of Perea, another "messiah", from earlier that century was probably where they got most of what ended up in the gospels re dying and rising. Obviously if "rising" meant "permanent physical resurrection', all the others in Matthew that rose with Jebus would have to be accounted for. They were not. Matthew also said when they saw him, they "were afraid, and they doubted, but believed". If they were seeing a real normal physical body, that would not be the case. Obviously it meant something else, as it did to Thomas who, even seeing, still doubted, until he did the finger thing. If it was a physical body, he would have recognized him, as would the disciples on the Road to Emmaus. They didn't.

The whole business had a long development period. Taking the latest piece of lit concerning it (John), and slapping that meaning onto all of them, assuming they all meant the same thing, is just not warranted.

Yep.

In my opinion, Paul's Christ wasn't even Jeebus.

I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect "Jesus" was interpolated into Paul's writings where he had only written "Christ."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 05:45 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(09-05-2013 07:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Thanks for the citation of the argument from authority, but I already understand it well. Something isn't necessarily true just because an expert's opinion is behind it, and this becomes clearer when experts disagree about a topic. Having an expert agree with you is certainly beneficial, but the reason why I always avoid citing experts is for that very reason -- it helps your case, but it can't make your case.

I understand the point you make about "Presentism", but you and I are both aware that the words "son" and "father" also meant a biological relationship back then. I'm not ignoring the idea of them being used as honorifics as well, and I even conceded that point. But there are parts of the gospels that make more sense when seen through the current meaning, and it's fair to think that they may have been used that way back then because they also held those meanings at that time... as well. I didn't make the argument that "there is [only] *one* meaning"... that is exactly the error here that I'm trying to correct you on.

Finally, I think you're inferring that Jesus being the "son" of God implies divinity, but you may be exercising a bit of presentism yourself in that context. With what I know of the Greek and Roman gods, being the son of a God (even a literal one) didn't automatically make you a god... Hercules and the Cyclops, for examples, were children of gods but were themselves only epic heroes/villains rather than deities. It's possible that people understood Jesus to be related to God and still not see him as "equal" to God.

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
10-05-2013, 06:24 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013 02:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(10-05-2013 05:45 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(09-05-2013 07:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Thanks for the citation of the argument from authority, but I already understand it well. Something isn't necessarily true just because an expert's opinion is behind it, and this becomes clearer when experts disagree about a topic. Having an expert agree with you is certainly beneficial, but the reason why I always avoid citing experts is for that very reason -- it helps your case, but it can't make your case.

I understand the point you make about "Presentism", but you and I are both aware that the words "son" and "father" also meant a biological relationship back then. I'm not ignoring the idea of them being used as honorifics as well, and I even conceded that point. But there are parts of the gospels that make more sense when seen through the current meaning, and it's fair to think that they may have been used that way back then because they also held those meanings at that time... as well. I didn't make the argument that "there is [only] *one* meaning"... that is exactly the error here that I'm trying to correct you on.

Finally, I think you're inferring that Jesus being the "son" of God implies divinity, but you may be exercising a bit of presentism yourself in that context. With what I know of the Greek and Roman gods, being the son of a God (even a literal one) didn't automatically make you a god... Hercules and the Cyclops, for examples, were children of gods but were themselves only epic heroes/villains rather than deities. It's possible that people understood Jesus to be related to God and still not see him as "equal" to God.

What part "make more sense, EXACTLY ? And explain how that sort of relationship with Yahweh would not be polytheism. It's not reasonable in the culture, because you, with no references or explanation decree it to be so. We're talking about the HEBREW god.


Edit : with respect to what you see below here. Maklelan wrote a post adrdessing the OP here, with a lot of "yes it does", "no it doesn't" ... and NO actual referenced replies.
I saved it, and have the post, but (obviously) he deleted his post from this thread, just before he stopped posting on TTA, after Chas challenged the nonsense of Mormonism. I won't bump the thread at this point, but at some time in the future if he returns, or it becomes an issue, I do have the copy of what he posted below, and then deleted. I make no judgement about why he did that. It may just have been a courtesy as he wouldn't be here for a discussion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 11:45 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
I've split this thread to a new one with all the discussions concerning Ralph Ellis. I apologize StarCrash, I see that it makes it look like the thread ended without a response from you - obviously I should have left your response post here... Um yeah. Oh well... The link for the split thread is: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...alph-Ellis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 12:45 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Here is a joke for you.

A guy shows up in the Bronx New York, stops a Jewish women in the streets and says, "I am Jesus". The somewhat puzzled Jewish woman, with her strong Bronx accent, responded by saying, "Ye shu wah ?".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: