The resurrection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 03:28 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 10:27 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  The gospel of Mark, which is the first gospel written, doesn't have a resurrection in the earliest copies and some of the early church fathers commented on this problem. Here is a link to the Codex Vaticanus from 300 AD. It's in Greek. So far as I know this is the oldest extant copy of the entire new testament. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03

You can scroll through to the photo of the Mark manuscript , click on it and scroll through to the last chapter and verse and it stops at verse 8 (or is it 6, I can't remember). After around the 4th century the last 8 verses were written and added so it would have a resurrection scene. Most Christians are totally unaware of this.

I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.


No, there is no confusion. Later xtian assholes were so embarrassed that they invented a bunch of different endings that we know of today.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist...rk-part-1/

Actually, the original ending makes the most sense as this horseshit was likely written in the second century. "Mark" (or whoever wrote it) has to explain why events that happened 70-100 years earlier were only becoming known then so he blames the chickenshit women who "said nothing." (Typical male!)

Of course, that demands the question of how "Mark" heard about it but this is enough dynamite to blow xtian brains for now.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 03:40 PM
RE: The resurrection
I had a resur-erection the day before yesterday. Tongue Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
21-02-2017, 03:50 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 03:28 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.


No, there is no confusion. Later xtian assholes were so embarrassed that they invented a bunch of different endings that we know of today.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist...rk-part-1/

Actually, the original ending makes the most sense as this horseshit was likely written in the second century. "Mark" (or whoever wrote it) has to explain why events that happened 70-100 years earlier were only becoming known then so he blames the chickenshit women who "said nothing." (Typical male!)

Of course, that demands the question of how "Mark" heard about it but this is enough dynamite to blow xtian brains for now.

Well yes -- I do not dispute any of that, nor have I ever disputed it. I only claim that the original version of Mark (not counting any of the additions) has an abbreviated resurrection story in it (at least in any of the English translations I have seen -- I do not read Greek). That's all. I defy you to find a post on this thread in which I have claimed any more than that. People keep arguing against something that I have never said. That is the confusion to which I'm referring. I am not talking about anything in any of the additions. I am talking about verses 6-8, which were present in the original. They refer to a resurrection. It is in the original. People who say there is "no resurrection" in the original version of Mark are wrong. That is all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 03:51 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 02:09 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 10:40 AM)Alla Wrote:  BTW, I believe in resurrection of the dead. But don't ask me about it.

So tell me, Alla, what do think of the resurrection of the dead? What type of resurrection we talking here? Are we talking about reconstitution of decaying flesh and bones? We talking about coming out of a brain dead coma? We talking new body? If it's a new body we talking flesh and bones or something more ethereal like angels? We talking cryogenics? We talking suspended animation? What about regeneration of DNA and cloning? Does that count? There are all sort of fascinating aspects to the concept to discuss. Don't be such a party pooper.
Smile I can not say "no" to you, GirlyMan.
According to LDS Doctrine resurrection is re-union of spirit(spiritual body) and physical body.
Spirit without physical body can not have eternal progression and eternal happiness.
Spirit without physical body can not touch things, smell things, taste things, hug or kiss loved ones. So, spirit without physical body has disadvantage.
To die and not to have physical body ever again is = to be in hell forever.
Imagine how miserable you can be after you experienced smell of a flower, or touch of a woman you love and to have joy because of that and then for whole eternity not to have this wonderful experience again.

How does it work? I mean how does resurrection happen? God didn't reveal details but He gave some hints.
I will tell you how I understand those hints but I don't claim my understanding is true. This is pure speculation on my part.
Based on LDS Doctrine I can assume that God "takes" eternal elements and He forms things. How? If I understand Joseph Smith correctly God commands eternal elements and they organize themselves. How can God command elements that they would organize themselves? Those elements have intelligence. They obey eternal physical laws because they have intelligence.
So, God organizes new physical body out of eternal elements. Does He use those elements that were once part of old physical body? I don't know. But if I use hint God gave, it is very, very possible.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:21 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(20-02-2017 08:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's a little "nerdy", but Jewish apocalyptic heroes, (and Jesus was one in a line of them) were "raised up" (as in metaphorically "exalted"), not "bodily raised from the dead".
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture, (and the Greek language used to describe it).

See : "How Jesus Became a god, the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee", (Bart Ehrman),
or "The Trouble With Resurrection", (Dr. B.B. Scott ... Christian seminary professor).

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Oh my goodness! I've never made that connection before. Yes, Judaism aims to "raise up" people or things to a higher spiritual status. I'd never made the connection that the Christians might have just misunderstood this very basic and fundamental Jewish concept and taken it as a literal "raising up" from the dead.

It amuses me to no end to think all of this resurrection stuff is the result of misinterpreting a few words. It's like an episode of Three's Company, if they could just get clarification from the landlord, it would all be cleared up in a matter of seconds.

But no, we don't even know who the original authors were and we've had around 2,000 years of hijinks ever since.

[Image: pFw80tHl.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
21-02-2017, 04:42 PM
RE: The resurrection
(20-02-2017 08:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's a little "nerdy", but Jewish apocalyptic heroes, (and Jesus was one in a line of them) were "raised up" (as in metaphorically "exalted"), not "bodily raised from the dead".
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture, (and the Greek language used to describe it).

See : "How Jesus Became a god, the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee", (Bart Ehrman),
or "The Trouble With Resurrection", (Dr. B.B. Scott ... Christian seminary professor).

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Wow, Bucky. That's a link to one loooooong post you wrote there. Bowing Ummm, can I just ask you a question instead of reading your book...er...post?

So the Greek translation of the word "rise up" actually has a different meaning in Ancient Hebrew which actually means "exalted". Is this correct? Was this another mistranslation in the Septuagint or is Paul misinterpreting it or was it later Christians that misinterpreted Paul's word?

This seems like it's similar to following a paper trail backwards to it's source, except it's following a misinterpretation trail back to the Torah.

Thanks Bucky. And by the way, you're not really all THAT insufferable. Rolleyes You are kind of a know it all though. Tongue

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 04:49 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  According to LDS Doctrine resurrection is re-union of spirit(spiritual body) and physical body. ...This is pure speculation on my part. Based on LDS Doctrine I can assume that God "takes" eternal elements and He forms things. How? If I understand Joseph Smith correctly God commands eternal elements and they organize themselves. How can God command elements that they would organize themselves? Those elements have intelligence. They obey eternal physical laws because they have intelligence.

So this sounds kinda like Platonic dualism where the soul is a manifestation of the world of Forms temporarily united with a physical body until death when the soul returns to the world of Forms. So resurrection could imply the reembodiment of a particular soul in a completely new body? Or it could mean the remanifestation of a particular soul in some vestige of a specific physical body (a clone, for example)? Or it could mean the reunification of any generic soul with any generic physical body? (The last case sounds like it should be called "birth".) All of these intepretations and many more are captured by various religions but what do you think? To narrow these options down further let me ask you this. Do you believe in the postmortem preservation of identity? When you are resurrected (rejoined seems more descriptive) will you remember Alla? Does it even matter if you do or not?

(21-02-2017 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  Does He use those elements that were once part of old physical body? I don't know. But if I use hint God gave, it is very, very possible.

Sure. I mean it's possible for us to do that now with cloning. I'm more interested in what you think of the possibility of salvaging remnants of the individual mind (not counting work product) 'cause that seems harder.


(21-02-2017 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  To die and not to have physical body ever again is = to be in hell forever.

That would depend on the body I would think. Ever seen a fat man in a fundoshi?

(21-02-2017 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  Imagine how miserable you can be after you experienced smell of a flower, or touch of a woman you love and to have joy because of that and then for whole eternity not to have this wonderful experience again.

Yeah, pretty sure neither that flower nor woman would survive past like Tuesday. Anything you do for eternity sounds like hell. Even eternal bliss would become hell by like Tuesday. The temporariness and impermanence of the experience is what gives it meaning. If it's just one more memory in an infinite sea of memories acquired over all of eternity it don't mean much. Hell is eternal anything, it's eternal being, eternal existence. Your heaven is very much my idea of hell.
...
Would you care for some tea?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 04:58 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 04:42 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(20-02-2017 08:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's a little "nerdy", but Jewish apocalyptic heroes, (and Jesus was one in a line of them) were "raised up" (as in metaphorically "exalted"), not "bodily raised from the dead".
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture, (and the Greek language used to describe it).

See : "How Jesus Became a god, the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee", (Bart Ehrman),
or "The Trouble With Resurrection", (Dr. B.B. Scott ... Christian seminary professor).

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Wow, Bucky. That's a link to one loooooong post you wrote there. Bowing Ummm, can I just ask you a question instead of reading your book...er...post?

So the Greek translation of the word "rise up" actually has a different meaning in Ancient Hebrew which actually means "exalted". Is this correct? Was this another mistranslation in the Septuagint or is Paul misinterpreting it or was it later Christians that misinterpreted Paul's word?

This seems like it's similar to following a paper trail backwards to it's source, except it's following a misinterpretation trail back to the Torah.

Thanks Bucky. And by the way, you're not really all THAT insufferable. Rolleyes You are kind of a know it all though. Tongue

Not exactly. The Hebrews thought heroes were "exalted".
It's the Greek that was mistranslated.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 09:42 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 09:47 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 03:50 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Well yes -- I do not dispute any of that, nor have I ever disputed it. I only claim that the original version of Mark (not counting any of the additions) has an abbreviated resurrection story in it (at least in any of the English translations I have seen -- I do not read Greek). That's all. I defy you to find a post on this thread in which I have claimed any more than that. People keep arguing against something that I have never said. That is the confusion to which I'm referring. I am not talking about anything in any of the additions. I am talking about verses 6-8, which were present in the original. They refer to a resurrection. It is in the original. People who say there is "no resurrection" in the original version of Mark are wrong. That is all.

Easy, Grasshoppah!

It's too easy to get sucked into the game of looking at the narrative as if it's an accurate reporting of what-went-on-at-the-time, like a stenographer in court, rather than tales written years after they happened, likely by people who had heard the stories secondhand, and for the purpose of pushing a particular sociopolitical agenda.

He's just pointing out to you that you're working with a problematic English translation, looking at it through the lens of the way it has been promoted later, and for centuries thereafter, by Christians who adopted this "the word means to be resurrected from the dead" meaning.

You're also leaving out that in Mark 14, Jesus makes a similar reference, in which he cites a passage in Zechariah. Jesus says,

"You will all fall away, Jesus told them, for it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." (Mark 14:27-28)

If you actually go back and look at the passage to which Jesus is referring, in Zechariah 13, it's not compatible with an interpretation of death, but of prophets being rejected by their families and cultures (because God was sick of prophets, apparently), and attacked violently, such that they ceased to state in public that they were prophets. The full passage reveals that Jesus could not have been referring to his own death, with that quote:

7 “Awake, sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is close to me!”
declares the Lord Almighty.
Strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered,

and I will turn my hand against the little ones.

8 In the whole land,” declares the Lord,
“two-thirds will be struck down and perish;
yet one-third will be left in it.
9 This third I will put into the fire;
I will refine them like silver
and test them like gold.
They will call on my name
and I will answer them;
I will say, ‘They are my people,’
and they will say, ‘The Lord is our God.’”


(Mark appears to "pause at the comma", so to speak, in quoting verse 7.)

If you translate "risen" as "exalted", it's an apocalyptic prediction, but not a prediction of death and resurrection. He's saying it's about to get so bad for the Jews and those who are holy among them (such as the "teacher of righteousness", Rabbi Yeshua himself) that others will disown them in order to save themselves... as Peter later does by denying he knows Jesus.

Keep in mind that Mark was written about the time of the Zealots and the revolt against Rome, which was brutally quelled. The message is political: once the people have passed through the genocide and "fire" that purifies the remainder, the prophets who stayed steadfast will be exalted. That is the prediction.

Instead, the authorities simply killed the cult leader, and the followers had to come up with new explanations for What It All Meant™. When they found the empty tomb, there could have been many reasons as to why that was-- like other followers had moved the body, or he had ascended into heaven "Elijah style", or that he had survived the crucifixion and would emerge when it was safe to spiritually (not militarily) lead the rebels against the Romans, as an Exalted One. [Edit to Add: I find the last of those the most likely, given the actual ending verses of Mark... they led the cult on hope that their leader wasn't really dead and would "return soon".]

Over time, this concept morphed into the whole dying-and-rising-god myth we see read into those scriptures, today. But it's not inherently in the text, except in hindsight, due to the shading of those who later came to see it that way.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-02-2017, 10:35 PM
RE: The resurrection
Quote:I only claim that the original version of Mark (not counting any of the additions) has an abbreviated resurrection story in it (at least in any of the English translations I have seen -- I do not read Greek). That's all. I defy you to find a post on this thread in which I have claimed any more than that.

No, you claimed there is confusion about the issue and made the additional claim that what we see in the earliest Greek manuscripts has been "abbreviated." Really? The whole point of jesusism is the frigging resurrection why would they abbreviate that? Further, in order to "abbreviate" it you must pretend that the whole story was there and for some silly reason they elected to cut it out.

That's a bridge too far.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: