Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments for and against the Resurrection

rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Arguments for the Resurrection
1. The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah would be killed and resurrect.
But I am very skeptical that everything in the Bible is factually correct, like the world"s plants surviving a global flood.

2. C.S. Lewis" The Lord / Liar / Lunatic / Later fabrication dilemma
C.S. Lewis showed that each of the alternatives to the Resurrection story have major problems. For example, since the early Christians taught about God and such inspiring morality, understood the prophecies, and faced persecution, they would tend not to lie about their claims.

3.The apostles said that they saw Him resurrected in the flesh and His Ascension. They should have known from Mary if the virgin birth was real.

4.The tomb was found empty with the grave clothes inside, suggesting it wasn"t a normal grave robbery

5.James, Jesus' brother, became a leader in Christianity after allegedly being a doubter (John 7:5). So something changed his opinion.
But maybe family members of other sects like the Mormons got pulled into the sects too after being doubters?

6.Christian Miracles and signs that have happened after the resurrection
eg. Weeping statues of Mary, mass sightings of Mary, healings, etc.
But other religions claim miracles. Some people at Mary"s apparitions said that they did not notice anything supernatural.

7.Christianity overcame persecution and spread around the world
But perhaps Christianity spread because it meets a deep psychology need, not necessarily because it is factually true?

8.The Turin Shroud
Scholars argue so much over this that it"s hard to know what to think. I believe that it can really be carefully traced back at least to the Byzantine empire, and that it"s not a Western Christian medieval hoax. One researcher who carbon dated it to the 13th century later believed that the test was corrupted by the introduction of medieval threads sewed to repair it.

Arguments against the Resurrection

1.The Virgin Birth, Transfigured Resurrection, and Bodily Ascension contradict our scientific understanding of the natural world.
But God can do anything He wants and our understanding of science is always changing with new discoveries that contradict earlier understandings. Until the 20th century, doctors thought that bad winds caused illnesses.

2.There have been sects like the Mormons who teach inspiring morality, alleged miracles and were persecuted, so Christianity may not be unique in this. Another example is the 1st-2nd century gnostic Christians who wrote gospels with Christian morality and miracles like Jesus" post resurrection body standing to the sky.

3.Text criticism of the resurrection accounts could cast doubt on them. For example, John 21:14 said that the first three times Jesus showed himself to the disciples were twice in Jerusalem, when He proved Himself to Thomas in front of the others, and a third appearance by the Sea of Tiberias. Yet Matthew ends his gospel with Jesus" appearance on a mountain to the disciples that leaves some disciples doubting. (Mat 28:17) It seems a big problem that disciples would still be doubting if He already cleared things up.
But Christian scholars have gone over the texts so thoroughly that I think that they could give at least a rational explanation for all these literary objections.

Are there any arguments that I missed?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 5:16:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:
Arguments for the Resurrection
1. The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah would be killed and resurrect.
But I am very skeptical that everything in the Bible is factually correct, like the world"s plants surviving a global flood.

2. C.S. Lewis" The Lord / Liar / Lunatic / Later fabrication dilemma
C.S. Lewis showed that each of the alternatives to the Resurrection story have major problems. For example, since the early Christians taught about God and such inspiring morality, understood the prophecies, and faced persecution, they would tend not to lie about their claims.

3.The apostles said that they saw Him resurrected in the flesh and His Ascension. They should have known from Mary if the virgin birth was real.

4.The tomb was found empty with the grave clothes inside, suggesting it wasn"t a normal grave robbery

5.James, Jesus' brother, became a leader in Christianity after allegedly being a doubter (John 7:5). So something changed his opinion.
But maybe family members of other sects like the Mormons got pulled into the sects too after being doubters?

6.Christian Miracles and signs that have happened after the resurrection
eg. Weeping statues of Mary, mass sightings of Mary, healings, etc.
But other religions claim miracles. Some people at Mary"s apparitions said that they did not notice anything supernatural.

7.Christianity overcame persecution and spread around the world
But perhaps Christianity spread because it meets a deep psychology need, not necessarily because it is factually true?

8.The Turin Shroud
Scholars argue so much over this that it"s hard to know what to think. I believe that it can really be carefully traced back at least to the Byzantine empire, and that it"s not a Western Christian medieval hoax. One researcher who carbon dated it to the 13th century later believed that the test was corrupted by the introduction of medieval threads sewed to repair it.

Arguments against the Resurrection

1.The Virgin Birth, Transfigured Resurrection, and Bodily Ascension contradict our scientific understanding of the natural world.
But God can do anything He wants and our understanding of science is always changing with new discoveries that contradict earlier understandings. Until the 20th century, doctors thought that bad winds caused illnesses.

2.There have been sects like the Mormons who teach inspiring morality, alleged miracles and were persecuted, so Christianity may not be unique in this. Another example is the 1st-2nd century gnostic Christians who wrote gospels with Christian morality and miracles like Jesus" post resurrection body standing to the sky.

3.Text criticism of the resurrection accounts could cast doubt on them. For example, John 21:14 said that the first three times Jesus showed himself to the disciples were twice in Jerusalem, when He proved Himself to Thomas in front of the others, and a third appearance by the Sea of Tiberias. Yet Matthew ends his gospel with Jesus" appearance on a mountain to the disciples that leaves some disciples doubting. (Mat 28:17) It seems a big problem that disciples would still be doubting if He already cleared things up.
But Christian scholars have gone over the texts so thoroughly that I think that they could give at least a rational explanation for all these literary objections.

Are there any arguments that I missed?

Are you aware that the Shroud of Turin was debunked by radiometric dating about 10 years ago? Or maybe it was longer. Tests showed it to be about 700 years old..which is a good 1300 years after JC died.

Do you also know that the Immaculate Conception--the Virgin Birth--was originally meant when speaking of Mary's birth? And NOT Jesus's? Don't feel bad if you did not know that--as it has been my experience that 70% of christians don't either. LOL

Lewis's "Lord Lunatic Liar" argument has a gaping hole in it!!

He omits a very important option. In fact, I think it is the one correct option as to how JC could have been NOT god. Or not even divine.

And that is: he never said the things he was quoted as saying in the gospels--about him being god.

A closer look at the NT will show you that almost ALL of his quotes where he claimed to be Divine--if not ALL of them--come from the Book of John.Which was the last gospel, written a good 60 years AFTER he died.

It was also written after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple. And squashed them in a nasty war---a three-years uprising. SO tensions were high--they were being persecuted worse than ever, and so JC's reputation grew in an attempt to elevate him from mere rabbi and political insurrectionist (which he was) to a god.

That is: all that stuff about "I am the Light" and the Alpha and Omego and all that--from John..were fabricated quotes from christian apologists. They were put into JC's mouth. He never said them.

The Jesus Seminar guys thought this was the case as well.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 5:42:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 5:16:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Are you aware that the Shroud of Turin was debunked by radiometric dating about 10 years ago? Or maybe it was longer. Tests showed it to be about 700 years old..which is a good 1300 years after JC died.

Yes, I mentioned the Carbon dating tests above, along with a person who came up with that carbon date changing his mind about the real date based on a repair:
See the article: "What caused Ray Rogers to change his mind about the carbon dating?"
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

Do you also know that the Immaculate Conception--the Virgin Birth--was originally meant when speaking of Mary's birth? And NOT Jesus's? Don't feel bad if you did not know that--as it has been my experience that 70% of christians don't either. LOL

Yes, the Immaculate Conception is not Jesus' virgin Birth, but Mary's. The Catholic church has never changed it's view about differentiating the two.

Lewis's "Lord Lunatic Liar" argument has a gaping hole in it!!

He omits a very important option. In fact, I think it is the one correct option as to how JC could have been NOT god. Or not even divine.

And that is: he never said the things he was quoted as saying in the gospels--about him being god.

Yes, I added "later fabrication" as one of the spokes of the dilemma. There are problems with saying that the gospels are just made up later. For example, in Philipians 2:5-7, Paul writes that Jesus was God who was made in the likeness of man.
Paul's letters were written before John's gospel. Also, all four gospels have hints that Jesus is divine, like when it calls Him "God's Son".

In any case, I agree with you that the claim is sometimes made that the story of Jesus' divinity was just made up later. My real question is whether I missed any arguments besides those I laid out above when it comes to whether the Resurrection happened. Is there any other way to tell?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 9:51:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 5:42:36 PM, rakovsky wrote:
At 6/14/2015 5:16:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Are you aware that the Shroud of Turin was debunked by radiometric dating about 10 years ago? Or maybe it was longer. Tests showed it to be about 700 years old..which is a good 1300 years after JC died.

Yes, I mentioned the Carbon dating tests above, along with a person who came up with that carbon date changing his mind about the real date based on a repair:
See the article: "What caused Ray Rogers to change his mind about the carbon dating?"
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com...


Do you also know that the Immaculate Conception--the Virgin Birth--was originally meant when speaking of Mary's birth? And NOT Jesus's? Don't feel bad if you did not know that--as it has been my experience that 70% of christians don't either. LOL

Yes, the Immaculate Conception is not Jesus' virgin Birth, but Mary's. The Catholic church has never changed it's view about differentiating the two.


Lewis's "Lord Lunatic Liar" argument has a gaping hole in it!!

He omits a very important option. In fact, I think it is the one correct option as to how JC could have been NOT god. Or not even divine.

And that is: he never said the things he was quoted as saying in the gospels--about him being god.

Yes, I added "later fabrication" as one of the spokes of the dilemma. There are problems with saying that the gospels are just made up later. For example, in Philipians 2:5-7, Paul writes that Jesus was God who was made in the likeness of man.
Paul's letters were written before John's gospel. Also, all four gospels have hints that Jesus is divine, like when it calls Him "God's Son".

In any case, I agree with you that the claim is sometimes made that the story of Jesus' divinity was just made up later. My real question is whether I missed any arguments besides those I laid out above when it comes to whether the Resurrection happened. Is there any other way to tell?

Not without a time machine.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 4:06:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:
Arguments for the Resurrection
1. The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah would be killed and resurrect.
But I am very skeptical that everything in the Bible is factually correct, like the world"s plants surviving a global flood.

The authors of the New Testament had access to the Old Testament. Do we have the ability to know they didn't just make it fit?
Furthermore, the way Jesus is said to have died and the prophecy are not similar enough to confirm one way or the other.

2. C.S. Lewis" The Lord / Liar / Lunatic / Later fabrication dilemma
C.S. Lewis showed that each of the alternatives to the Resurrection story have major problems. For example, since the early Christians taught about God and such inspiring morality, understood the prophecies, and faced persecution, they would tend not to lie about their claims.

Can I get a source for this?

3.The apostles said that they saw Him resurrected in the flesh and His Ascension. They should have known from Mary if the virgin birth was real.

No reliable or independent accounts exist of any apostle (except, arguably, Paul).

4.The tomb was found empty with the grave clothes inside, suggesting it wasn"t a normal grave robbery

How do we know it was found empty without assuming that Mark is partially accurate?

5.James, Jesus' brother, became a leader in Christianity after allegedly being a doubter (John 7:5). So something changed his opinion.
But maybe family members of other sects like the Mormons got pulled into the sects too after being doubters?

Any reliable source that doesn't have bias?

6.Christian Miracles and signs that have happened after the resurrection
eg. Weeping statues of Mary, mass sightings of Mary, healings, etc.
But other religions claim miracles. Some people at Mary"s apparitions said that they did not notice anything supernatural.

No verifiable evidence of miracles.

7.Christianity overcame persecution and spread around the world
But perhaps Christianity spread because it meets a deep psychology need, not necessarily because it is factually true?

There are numerous reasons Christianity spread that don't involve the supernatural.

8.The Turin Shroud
Scholars argue so much over this that it"s hard to know what to think. I believe that it can really be carefully traced back at least to the Byzantine empire, and that it"s not a Western Christian medieval hoax. One researcher who carbon dated it to the 13th century later believed that the test was corrupted by the introduction of medieval threads sewed to repair it.

It has been a confirmed hoax for a while. If the carbon testing really was corrupted, test it again with fibers in multiple places.

Arguments against the Resurrection

1.The Virgin Birth, Transfigured Resurrection, and Bodily Ascension contradict our scientific understanding of the natural world.
But God can do anything He wants and our understanding of science is always changing with new discoveries that contradict earlier understandings. Until the 20th century, doctors thought that bad winds caused illnesses.

1) Our understanding of science might change, but that does not give reason to doubt the science of today.
2) Your "god can do anything" in regard to the resurrection presupposes the validity of Christianity

2.There have been sects like the Mormons who teach inspiring morality, alleged miracles and were persecuted, so Christianity may not be unique in this. Another example is the 1st-2nd century gnostic Christians who wrote gospels with Christian morality and miracles like Jesus" post resurrection body standing to the sky.

Can you clarify your point here?

3.Text criticism of the resurrection accounts could cast doubt on them. For example, John 21:14 said that the first three times Jesus showed himself to the disciples were twice in Jerusalem, when He proved Himself to Thomas in front of the others, and a third appearance by the Sea of Tiberias. Yet Matthew ends his gospel with Jesus" appearance on a mountain to the disciples that leaves some disciples doubting. (Mat 28:17) It seems a big problem that disciples would still be doubting if He already cleared things up.
But Christian scholars have gone over the texts so thoroughly that I think that they could give at least a rational explanation for all these literary objections.

Are there any arguments that I missed?

For against the resurrection:
All accounts ultimately stem from a single account (lack of independent verification), and that one account almost certainly was not written by an eye witness or someone that had access to an eye witness (making it unreliable).

And, one of my favorite, that Jesus didn't exist so he couldn't resurrect.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:29:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 4:06:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:
2.There have been sects like the Mormons who teach inspiring morality, alleged miracles and were persecuted, so Christianity may not be unique in this. Another example is the 1st-2nd century gnostic Christians who wrote gospels with Christian morality and miracles like Jesus" post resurrection body standing to the sky.

Can you clarify your point here?
One of the claims on behalf of Christianity is that it is unique in this area: Their morality is inspiring, they teach about God, they proclaimed miracles, they faced persecution. So some people come away from the story believing that it must be true because the apostles are inspiring, appear morally upright, and faced persecution to proclaim their beliefs.

However, Gnostic Christians also qualified for those criteria, yet the Church doesn't accept the gnostic gospels or their unique miraculous claims, like Jesus standing as tall as the sky.

For against the resurrection:
All accounts ultimately stem from a single account (lack of independent verification), and that one account almost certainly was not written by an eye witness or someone that had access to an eye witness (making it unreliable).

I don't know how you could show that they all come from a single account, since there were multiple apostles, multiple alleged witnesses, and we have multiple accounts with major differences between them- like Matthew describing Jesus appearing in Galilee and Luke describing Him appearing in Jerusalem.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 6:29:19 PM, rakovsky wrote:
At 6/15/2015 4:06:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:
2.There have been sects like the Mormons who teach inspiring morality, alleged miracles and were persecuted, so Christianity may not be unique in this. Another example is the 1st-2nd century gnostic Christians who wrote gospels with Christian morality and miracles like Jesus" post resurrection body standing to the sky.

Can you clarify your point here?
One of the claims on behalf of Christianity is that it is unique in this area: Their morality is inspiring, they teach about God, they proclaimed miracles, they faced persecution. So some people come away from the story believing that it must be true because the apostles are inspiring, appear morally upright, and faced persecution to proclaim their beliefs.

Why, then, would you bring up Mormonism (which came over a thousand years later) when comparing it? Why not bring up Romulus, Osiris, etc?

However, Gnostic Christians also qualified for those criteria, yet the Church doesn't accept the gnostic gospels or their unique miraculous claims, like Jesus standing as tall as the sky.

Okay.

For against the resurrection:
All accounts ultimately stem from a single account (lack of independent verification), and that one account almost certainly was not written by an eye witness or someone that had access to an eye witness (making it unreliable).

I don't know how you could show that they all come from a single account, since there were multiple apostles, multiple alleged witnesses, and we have multiple accounts with major differences between them- like Matthew describing Jesus appearing in Galilee and Luke describing Him appearing in Jerusalem.

Textual criticism allows us to see how documents came to be. Let's start just with the comparison of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:40:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:

Are there any arguments that I missed?

Have you ever considered there might be another way to interpret "the resurrection" than arguing whether it literally happened or not?

What if the whole story is allegorical. Does that change the way you see things?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 9:21:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 6:40:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:

Are there any arguments that I missed?

Have you ever considered there might be another way to interpret "the resurrection" than arguing whether it literally happened or not?

What if the whole story is allegorical. Does that change the way you see things?

Not for me it does not.

I have always believed the so-called Resurrection of JC was merely a Spiritual one. Not a physical one.

One night, probably around sunset, ol' Pedro was looking out over the lake, or the shore, watching a pretty sunset. Thinking about his ol' buddy Yehsua.

Thinking about Yesh's teachings. His parables. His life. His Passion. He exhortation for Pedro to be the rock to be build the church.

And suddenly....BAM. It came to him, like a burst of light (Kinda like Saul on the road to Tarsus!) Of what Yeshua was tryin' to tell him. Of how he meant, sure He (JC) was the son of god..but hell, so is everybody!

Basically, Pedro had a sort of epiphany that he shared with his mates.

THIS was the true resurrection of JC. The Resurrection of His Teachings. The grasping of them.

So..yeah..it affirms my long held belief that JC was a teacher. A rabbi--as well as, of course, a political insurrectionist. A firebrand. One of many in 1st Century Palestine at that time.

But fully mortal. A man. A fine teacher, but a man. Like Confucious; Lao Tzu; Rumi; Ghandi; Mandella; Martin Luther; and Martin Luther KIng, Jr.

He was among that Pantheon.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 9:31:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am surprised no christian apologist has mentioned what I personally (An agnostic) have always thought was one of the best argument for the physical resurrection of JC.

Or maybe somebody did and I missed it?

Anyway..it is this.............

Even though the Gospel accounts on the discovery of the empty tomb differ, and in fact, like so very many things in the bible, contradict each other, they DO agree on one curious tenet of the discovery.

And that is.....it was found by women!

What is so special about that, you may ask?

Ya gotta realize that back then in 1st Century Palestine women were decidedly second class citizens. In fact, barely considered citizens. More like chattel. Almost as bad as radical mooslims today.

They couldn't even testify in court. Their word as compared to a man's was shite.

So why did the gospel writers have women discover the empty tomb?

I mean, if I was writing a fictitious story and wanted to convince people, back in that day, I would have had somebody really official and respected find that ol' JC had skedaddled. Maybe an apostle. Or..no..even better: a Roman Centurion. A member of the Sanhedrin. Or a Pharisee.

But why women.

Unless it really happened that way........

Food for thought, amigos/
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 3:00:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 9:21:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 6:40:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:

Are there any arguments that I missed?

Have you ever considered there might be another way to interpret "the resurrection" than arguing whether it literally happened or not?

What if the whole story is allegorical. Does that change the way you see things?

Not for me it does not.

I have always believed the so-called Resurrection of JC was merely a Spiritual one. Not a physical one.

One night, probably around sunset, ol' Pedro was looking out over the lake, or the shore, watching a pretty sunset. Thinking about his ol' buddy Yehsua.

Thinking about Yesh's teachings. His parables. His life. His Passion. He exhortation for Pedro to be the rock to be build the church.

And suddenly....BAM. It came to him, like a burst of light (Kinda like Saul on the road to Tarsus!) Of what Yeshua was tryin' to tell him. Of how he meant, sure He (JC) was the son of god..but hell, so is everybody!

Basically, Pedro had a sort of epiphany that he shared with his mates.

THIS was the true resurrection of JC. The Resurrection of His Teachings. The grasping of them.

So..yeah..it affirms my long held belief that JC was a teacher. A rabbi--as well as, of course, a political insurrectionist. A firebrand. One of many in 1st Century Palestine at that time.

But fully mortal. A man. A fine teacher, but a man. Like Confucious; Lao Tzu; Rumi; Ghandi; Mandella; Martin Luther; and Martin Luther KIng, Jr.

He was among that Pantheon.

And what if JC was merely an allegory or personification of Life/Truth /Reality itself? Does it make any difference if he was real or not?

Many truths can be taught via fictional characters.

Does Life sacrifice itself and also raise itself up, renew itself daily? Does it live and die at the same time?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 5:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The biblical jebus is a 100% Historical MYTH!

It is capable of doing or not doing whatever those humans concocted it to do or even not do as their imaginations deemed fit!
rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 12:22:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 6:34:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/15/2015 6:29:19 PM, rakovsky wrote:
At 6/15/2015 4:06:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why, then, would you bring up Mormonism (which came over a thousand years later) when comparing it? Why not bring up Romulus, Osiris, etc?

Mormonism stands as a better case of people who claimed to see miracles themselves facing persecution. In the case of Mormonism J.Smith claimed to have gold plates from an angel, and he and his brother got killed.


For against the resurrection:
All accounts ultimately stem from a single account (lack of independent verification), and that one account almost certainly was not written by an eye witness or someone that had access to an eye witness (making it unreliable).

I don't know how you could show that they all come from a single account, since there were multiple apostles, multiple alleged witnesses, and we have multiple accounts with major differences between them- like Matthew describing Jesus appearing in Galilee and Luke describing Him appearing in Jerusalem.

Textual criticism allows us to see how documents came to be. Let's start just with the comparison of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

This is a good graph. It shows that Mark's material makes up about half the material in Matthew and Luke. However, that does not show that all the information stems from one account, since Mark's account doesn't provide the other half of the information in the other gospels.
rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 12:34:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 9:21:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 6:40:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/14/2015 3:26:09 PM, rakovsky wrote:

Are there any arguments that I missed?

Have you ever considered there might be another way to interpret "the resurrection" than arguing whether it literally happened or not?

What if the whole story is allegorical. Does that change the way you see things?

Not for me it does not.

I have always believed the so-called Resurrection of JC was merely a Spiritual one. Not a physical one.

One night, probably around sunset, ol' Pedro was looking out over the lake, or the shore, watching a pretty sunset. Thinking about his ol' buddy Yehsua.

Thinking about Yesh's teachings. His parables. His life. His Passion. He exhortation for Pedro to be the rock to be build the church.

And suddenly....BAM. It came to him, like a burst of light (Kinda like Saul on the road to Tarsus!) Of what Yeshua was tryin' to tell him. Of how he meant, sure He (JC) was the son of god..but hell, so is everybody!

Basically, Pedro had a sort of epiphany that he shared with his mates.

THIS was the true resurrection of JC. The Resurrection of His Teachings. The grasping of them.

So..yeah..it affirms my long held belief that JC was a teacher. A rabbi--as well as, of course, a political insurrectionist. A firebrand. One of many in 1st Century Palestine at that time.

But fully mortal. A man. A fine teacher, but a man. Like Confucious; Lao Tzu; Rumi; Ghandi; Mandella; Martin Luther; and Martin Luther KIng, Jr.

He was among that Pantheon.

I understand. However, Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke present the Resurrection as a physical event, with a physically empty tomb (in all 4 gospels), physical aspects of His appearances (Mat, Luke, John) like women holding His feet or Thomas putting His hand in Jesus' wounds.

And then you have 2 Peter, which says that they are not fancifully devised tales. Granted, 2 Peter is even in question as to its authenticity.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 12:52:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Darn right 2 Peter is in question as two authorship.

We are almost certain it was NOT penned by the title name person.

Also.....who is to say that a legitimate spiritual epiphany is fanciful? I believe it is MORE important than a physical resurrection.

You DO realize that the way Paul always spoke of the Resurrection indicated he felrt it was a Spiritual one, don't you? The way he always said that JC "was raised" onto Heaven and God causes most biblical scholars to believe Paul was referring to a spiritual ascension rather than a physical resuscitation.

If you read Mark--the earliest written gospel--you will see that he also most likely thought of the resurrection as a Spiritual one.

Paul also mentions NO virgin birth. And his letters were the earliest writings, preceding the gospels.

Look guys, it is obvious that the divinity and the alleged powers and "godness" of JC simply expanded and grew as the writings became later and later from when he died. This is why we have him talking so differently in John--the last gospel--written some 90 years AD. In John, all of a sudden the humble JC and his parables and his "why do you say I am good?" mindset are GONE. LOL. And he's all about, "I am the light and the way and the alpha and omega."

Really? LOL

No. John was written in perilous times: the Romans had crushed the Jews a decade or so ago in a three-year civil war. The Jewish temple had been razed. Christian persecution was at its height. The oppressed Christians were getting it from both sides: the non-christian old school Jews AND the Romans. They were losing their ID. Something had to be done.

So they steadily elevated their guru from a humble itinerant preacher to a divine faith healer. And then to godlike. And then finally...to God.

Which is preposterous for an even semi-educated modern day Westerner to take seriously.

Keep an open mind, amigos. But not so open that your brains fall out.

Drew.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 12:58:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh...on the 2 Peter error..

https://bible.org...

You should also know that we also now know that Paul did not write all those letters he was originally given credit for. The vast majority of biblical scholars today only totally agree on him penning six or seven of the thirteen he was originally thought to have written. He certainly did NOT write the letters to the Hebrews and Ephesians.

Again..you can look it up. Or I will provide links to any doubters.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 1:48:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 9:31:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I am surprised no christian apologist has mentioned what I personally (An agnostic) have always thought was one of the best argument for the physical resurrection of JC.

Or maybe somebody did and I missed it?

Anyway..it is this.............

Even though the Gospel accounts on the discovery of the empty tomb differ, and in fact, like so very many things in the bible, contradict each other, they DO agree on one curious tenet of the discovery.

And that is.....it was found by women!

What is so special about that, you may ask?

Ya gotta realize that back then in 1st Century Palestine women were decidedly second class citizens. In fact, barely considered citizens. More like chattel. Almost as bad as radical mooslims today.

They couldn't even testify in court. Their word as compared to a man's was shite.

So why did the gospel writers have women discover the empty tomb?

I mean, if I was writing a fictitious story and wanted to convince people, back in that day, I would have had somebody really official and respected find that ol' JC had skedaddled. Maybe an apostle. Or..no..even better: a Roman Centurion. A member of the Sanhedrin. Or a Pharisee.

But why women.

Unless it really happened that way........

Food for thought, amigos/

What you might consider is that women are given a different place in the gospels, eg. when a woman anoints Jesus' feet. So with this altered mindset, it can fit.

But otherwise, I can understand what you are saying. The women could really have been the first ones at the tomb on Sunday and it could have been empty, But this itself doesn't prove the resurrection story. Women could make things up, and the apostles could approve of or embellish what they said.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 2:05:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 1:48:13 PM, rakovsky wrote:
At 6/15/2015 9:31:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I am surprised no christian apologist has mentioned what I personally (An agnostic) have always thought was one of the best argument for the physical resurrection of JC.

Or maybe somebody did and I missed it?

Anyway..it is this.............

Even though the Gospel accounts on the discovery of the empty tomb differ, and in fact, like so very many things in the bible, contradict each other, they DO agree on one curious tenet of the discovery.

And that is.....it was found by women!

What is so special about that, you may ask?

Ya gotta realize that back then in 1st Century Palestine women were decidedly second class citizens. In fact, barely considered citizens. More like chattel. Almost as bad as radical mooslims today.

They couldn't even testify in court. Their word as compared to a man's was shite.

So why did the gospel writers have women discover the empty tomb?

I mean, if I was writing a fictitious story and wanted to convince people, back in that day, I would have had somebody really official and respected find that ol' JC had skedaddled. Maybe an apostle. Or..no..even better: a Roman Centurion. A member of the Sanhedrin. Or a Pharisee.

But why women.

Unless it really happened that way........

Food for thought, amigos/

What you might consider is that women are given a different place in the gospels, eg. when a woman anoints Jesus' feet. So with this altered mindset, it can fit.

But otherwise, I can understand what you are saying. The women could really have been the first ones at the tomb on Sunday and it could have been empty, But this itself doesn't prove the resurrection story. Women could make things up, and the apostles could approve of or embellish what they said.

Yes. I agree.

But I am not sure that "women were given a different place in the gospels."

Maybe by Jesus, they were. But the writers of the Gospels would have been most likely to be imbued with the same mindset as the rest of the Jewish world in 1st Century Palestine. And again, even of they were not, they still were on a mission, an agenda in writing those accounts of JC. So if they were trying to curry credibility with a largely misogynistic society one would think they would pander to their audience.

You know, like politicians do! LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 2:35:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 12:52:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Darn right 2 Peter is in question as two authorship.

We are almost certain it was NOT penned by the title name person.

Also.....who is to say that a legitimate spiritual epiphany is fanciful? I believe it is MORE important than a physical resurrection.

You DO realize that the way Paul always spoke of the Resurrection indicated he felrt it was a Spiritual one, don't you? The way he always said that JC "was raised" onto Heaven and God causes most biblical scholars to believe Paul was referring to a spiritual ascension rather than a physical resuscitation.

If you read Mark--the earliest written gospel--you will see that he also most likely thought of the resurrection as a Spiritual one.


Hi Drew. Yes, I know that this is one of the most common views among skeptics- that it was only intended as a spiritual resurrection. But I believe it was intended as a physical event for the reasons I listed. The facts that you listed don't contradict the reasons I laid out. The gospels and Paul at last present the story as if they were real events. Acts lists lots of physical miracles too, like Paul healing someone or Simon Magi flying. You can argue that Acts is made up too, but in any case the authors of Acts and the gospels present many extreme miracles as physical.

Paul's letters are homiletic, and they don't go into much explanation about miracles or gospel events.

I think one of the questions proponents of the theory that the original story was not physical at all should ask is why if all the gospels fabricated or embellished the story as physical events, then why couldn't they had done that in the original story too? You think the leadership of the church was telling everybody for 20 years that the resurrection was only spiritual, and the leadership was on board with that story, but then about 70 AD the leadership totally changed that story even though everybody knew it was not a physical resurrection? And then no one passed down any reports that the story was changed or started up a new sect in a schism over this?

Let's turn now to St. Paul in 1 Cor 15:
I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried (physical act), and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

Let's look at this. Christ's death and burial are portrayed as physical acts. Wouldn't then the implication be that the resurrection is also physical too? Rising is a physical act, and although one could take that spiritually, Paul never denies that it was physical.
Besides that, it says that the resurrection was according to the scriptures. However, in Judaism, so long as they entertained the idea of resurrection, the belief in resurrection was and is physical, and definitely not only spiritual.
(see Isaiah 26: "Dead bodies arise!")

In John, all of a sudden the humble JC and his parables and his "why do you say I am good?" mindset are GONE. LOL. And he's all about, "I am the light and the way and the alpha and omega."

That mindest by the way was one of the evidences of alleging divinity. The answer specified in the text is that only God is really good. So if you really believe that Jesus is inherently "good", you believe that He is God.

So they steadily elevated their guru from a humble itinerant preacher to a divine faith healer. And then to godlike. And then finally...to God.

I don't think so. I think that they just became much more open about it. In Paul's letters he already talks about Jesus being God "manifest" in human "likeness". It's just not as explicit as the theology that starts out in John.
rakovsky
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 2:51:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 2:05:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
And again, even of they were not, they still were on a mission, an agenda in writing those accounts of JC. So if they were trying to curry credibility with a largely misogynistic society one would think they would pander to their audience.

Yes, this is a good point. However their audience may have also included women they wanted to appeal to. They tried to appeal to divergent groups, including tax collectors, prostitutes, the sick, rich people, etc. They were not necessarily writing to the Establishment as an audience. So it's a good argument, but not fool proof.

Maybe by Jesus, they were. But the writers of the Gospels would have been most likely to be imbued with the same mindset as the rest of the Jewish world in 1st Century Palestine.

I don't think so. They had already chosen to follow and uphold Jesus' teachings and mindset for the past several decades.

Jewish society was not all so locked in the Orthodox Jewish mindset as people today might suppose. There were sects like the Essenes, and there were Hellenistic Jews who I think weren't even circumcized. The women finding the tomb empty is not so out of balance with the rest of the gospels, like an angel appearing to Mary, or Mary's cousin seeing an angel in the beginning of a gospel, the women preparing the corpse, etc.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 5:01:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 2:51:11 PM, rakovsky wrote:
At 6/16/2015 2:05:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
And again, even of they were not, they still were on a mission, an agenda in writing those accounts of JC. So if they were trying to curry credibility with a largely misogynistic society one would think they would pander to their audience.

Yes, this is a good point. However their audience may have also included women they wanted to appeal to. They tried to appeal to divergent groups, including tax collectors, prostitutes, the sick, rich people, etc. They were not necessarily writing to the Establishment as an audience. So it's a good argument, but not fool proof.

Maybe by Jesus, they were. But the writers of the Gospels would have been most likely to be imbued with the same mindset as the rest of the Jewish world in 1st Century Palestine.

I don't think so. They had already chosen to follow and uphold Jesus' teachings and mindset for the past several decades.

Jewish society was not all so locked in the Orthodox Jewish mindset as people today might suppose. There were sects like the Essenes, and there were Hellenistic Jews who I think weren't even circumcized. The women finding the tomb empty is not so out of balance with the rest of the gospels, like an angel appearing to Mary, or Mary's cousin seeing an angel in the beginning of a gospel, the women preparing the corpse, etc.

Ahh, but you gotta remember that the Essenes were a tiny group. Basically a cult. Certainly no more than 5% of Jews of that time. Right?

But...I DO like their teachings and dogma better than the others, at least from what I have read in stuff like Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels."

What is your opinion on the theory of Jesus actually having studied with them during his "lost years" from age 14 till he was 30 or so?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 6:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 5:04:41 AM, Composer wrote:
The biblical jebus is a 100% Historical MYTH!

It is capable of doing or not doing whatever those humans concocted it to do or even not do as their imaginations deemed fit!

I agree with Jesus being a myth but you need to admit the creators of the character have an extremely good grasp on personifying Life, Truth, and many different aspects of life.
The metaphors, allegories, parables, idioms, poetry, etc all have lessons to be learned in them and they are most fascinating when seen in that light.
You could glean a lot from them if you put your prejudice aside. We might even find it interesting to hear what messages or lessons you see in the stories if you can manage to see beyond outward appearances.

Were you any good at English literature and finding morals and lessons in stories or is ridiculing mythical characters the only thing you are capable of doing?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 6:41:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 12:52:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Darn right 2 Peter is in question as two authorship.

We are almost certain it was NOT penned by the title name person.

Many authors have used pseudonyms over the centuries. It is not uncommon for people to write books anonymously. Writers who do that are not trying to draw attention to themselves but rather to the characters in their stories. They are trying to get the readers to concentrate on the story and its message rather than the biography of the author.

Also.....who is to say that a legitimate spiritual epiphany is fanciful? I believe it is MORE important than a physical resurrection.

You DO realize that the way Paul always spoke of the Resurrection indicated he felrt it was a Spiritual one, don't you? The way he always said that JC "was raised" onto Heaven and God causes most biblical scholars to believe Paul was referring to a spiritual ascension rather than a physical resuscitation.

1 Corinthians 15 also indicates the resurrection is a spiritual thing not a physical thing.

The character Jesus in the story even claimed to BE the resurrection in John 11:25.
What does that mean to you readers? How many of you interpret that as a real man claiming to be a process or action of rising from the dead?
Was the character real or just a personification of a process which brings people out of darkness/ ignorance/death and into the light/understanding/ life ?

If you read Mark--the earliest written gospel--you will see that he also most likely thought of the resurrection as a Spiritual one.

Correct. It is sad that so many believers are blind to it and need unbelievers to point it out to them.

Paul also mentions NO virgin birth. And his letters were the earliest writings, preceding the gospels.

Look guys, it is obvious that the divinity and the alleged powers and "godness" of JC simply expanded and grew as the writings became later and later from when he died. This is why we have him talking so differently in John--the last gospel--written some 90 years AD. In John, all of a sudden the humble JC and his parables and his "why do you say I am good?" mindset are GONE. LOL. And he's all about, "I am the light and the way and the alpha and omega."

Really? LOL

That's not hard to understand when you see JC as a personification of Life and everything it involves including death.

No. John was written in perilous times: the Romans had crushed the Jews a decade or so ago in a three-year civil war. The Jewish temple had been razed. Christian persecution was at its height. The oppressed Christians were getting it from both sides: the non-christian old school Jews AND the Romans. They were losing their ID. Something had to be done.

So they steadily elevated their guru from a humble itinerant preacher to a divine faith healer. And then to godlike. And then finally...to God.

Maybe so but maybe the authors deliberately tried to show progression of Life from something humble and immature to something mature and grand. The principle of growth is all about sacrificing the old and immature ( the Son ) so the immature can become the mature ( the Father) It is about letting the old pass away / die/ be crucified in self sacrifice in order to be replaced with a more mature version of itself.
In that sense of growth, dying daily makes perfect sense. The old passes away and is immediately resurrected as a newer more mature version of itself.

Which is preposterous for an even semi-educated modern day Westerner to take seriously.

I agree, it is not good literature analysis to take any of it literally or believe it is some historical event.

Keep an open mind, amigos. But not so open that your brains fall out.

Too late for many. They have already lost their marbles. Trying to help them find them again is a challenge.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 6:51:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey Rakovsky!

Good post.

You asked me..........

"I think one of the questions proponents of the theory that the original story was not physical at all should ask is why if all the gospels fabricated or embellished the story as physical events, then why couldn't they had done that in the original story too? You think the leadership of the church was telling everybody for 20 years that the resurrection was only spiritual, and the leadership was on board with that story, but then about 70 AD the leadership totally changed that story even though everybody knew it was not a physical resurrection? And then no one passed down any reports that the story was changed or started up a new sect in a schism over this?"


Well, yeah. Pretty much--that is exactly what I believe.

But when you say the leadership of the church for 20 years..well, you are tlaking about a very small group of people. JC died in around 32 AD. Paul's first letters were not written until a good 15 years after. There were nos Gospels. Mark was not going to come along for another decade or so.

So..if you read Paul and Mark you see that there is NO Virgin Birth. No miracles. No "water to wine" stuff. No demons into pigs. Why? All that comes later and later as we get further from the actual life of JC. And his image grows as does the christian persecution. Almost perfectly and exponentially.

Hmm..wonder why? You really think this a a mere coincidence? Do you really think Jesus said the things he did in John? Hell, he was speaking like a completely different person from the way he did in the Synoptics. Where was the humility? The parables?

They were omitted for fabrication which was written as a part of an agenda to solidify his followers. Happens all the time. In politics and religion, amigo.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 7:01:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 2:05:22 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 1:48:13 PM, rakovsky wrote:
At 6/15/2015 9:31:30 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I am surprised no christian apologist has mentioned what I personally (An agnostic) have always thought was one of the best argument for the physical resurrection of JC.

Or maybe somebody did and I missed it?

Anyway..it is this.............

Even though the Gospel accounts on the discovery of the empty tomb differ, and in fact, like so very many things in the bible, contradict each other, they DO agree on one curious tenet of the discovery.

And that is.....it was found by women!

What is so special about that, you may ask?

Ya gotta realize that back then in 1st Century Palestine women were decidedly second class citizens. In fact, barely considered citizens. More like chattel. Almost as bad as radical mooslims today.

They couldn't even testify in court. Their word as compared to a man's was shite.

So why did the gospel writers have women discover the empty tomb?

I mean, if I was writing a fictitious story and wanted to convince people, back in that day, I would have had somebody really official and respected find that ol' JC had skedaddled. Maybe an apostle. Or..no..even better: a Roman Centurion. A member of the Sanhedrin. Or a Pharisee.

But why women.

Unless it really happened that way........

Food for thought, amigos/

What you might consider is that women are given a different place in the gospels, eg. when a woman anoints Jesus' feet. So with this altered mindset, it can fit.

But otherwise, I can understand what you are saying. The women could really have been the first ones at the tomb on Sunday and it could have been empty, But this itself doesn't prove the resurrection story. Women could make things up, and the apostles could approve of or embellish what they said.

Yes. I agree.

But I am not sure that "women were given a different place in the gospels."

Maybe by Jesus, they were. But the writers of the Gospels would have been most likely to be imbued with the same mindset as the rest of the Jewish world in 1st Century Palestine. And again, even of they were not, they still were on a mission, an agenda in writing those accounts of JC. So if they were trying to curry credibility with a largely misogynistic society one would think they would pander to their audience.

You know, like politicians do! LOL

What I find interesting is that it is the women ( Marys) in the story who seem to get the "revelations" first.

Are the writers suggesting women are more open and sensitive to new ideas than men ?
Do women have the ability to "give birth" to new life in both a physical and spiritual sense of "giving birth" to new ideas and concepts?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 8:06:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps. Who knows what they were trying to say? There is so much allegory and metaphor in the bible--indeed, the vast majority of it--that sometimes it is difficult to discern what they were trying to convey to us.

I doubt it though. Seems to "liberal" for 1st Century Jews. As there's was without a doubt a male-dominated society. For good or bad, that is the way it was.

Not mind you, as bad and misogynistic as the radical mooslims are; especially wacko cults like the Taliban and Sharia Law. But still.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 8:20:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 8:06:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Perhaps. Who knows what they were trying to say? There is so much allegory and metaphor in the bible--indeed, the vast majority of it--that sometimes it is difficult to discern what they were trying to convey to us.

That is what makes it a such a controversial classic which is still read and debated today.
You need to admit that kind of writing is brilliant.
When words can be interpreted in different ways, I find it interesting to discover how many ways readers interpret them.
Obviously it is not hard for different people to glean different things from the same story.

I doubt it though. Seems to "liberal" for 1st Century Jews. As there's was without a doubt a male-dominated society. For good or bad, that is the way it was.
Not mind you, as bad and misogynistic as the radical mooslims are; especially wacko cults like the Taliban and Sharia Law. But still.

Just because a society is male dominated does not mean some of those male writers were liberal thinkers. Creative liberal thinkers exist in every society. I doubt there is ever a society or time in history when opposites did not exist.
There is also the possibility that an anonymous writer might have been a woman using a male name as a pseudonym. How would anyone know if the writer did all they could to remain anonymous?

An interesting thing is that the women who received these revelations were named Mary which means rebellion.
The meanings of names were important and meaningful in that ancient culture. They were relevant to characters in the stories.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 8:26:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 8:20:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/16/2015 8:06:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Perhaps. Who knows what they were trying to say? There is so much allegory and metaphor in the bible--indeed, the vast majority of it--that sometimes it is difficult to discern what they were trying to convey to us.

That is what makes it a such a controversial classic which is still read and debated today.
You need to admit that kind of writing is brilliant.
When words can be interpreted in different ways, I find it interesting to discover how many ways readers interpret them.
Obviously it is not hard for different people to glean different things from the same story.

I doubt it though. Seems to "liberal" for 1st Century Jews. As there's was without a doubt a male-dominated society. For good or bad, that is the way it was.
Not mind you, as bad and misogynistic as the radical mooslims are; especially wacko cults like the Taliban and Sharia Law. But still.


Just because a society is male dominated does not mean some of those male writers were liberal thinkers. Creative liberal thinkers exist in every society. I doubt there is ever a society or time in history when opposites did not exist.
There is also the possibility that an anonymous writer might have been a woman using a male name as a pseudonym. How would anyone know if the writer did all they could to remain anonymous?

An interesting thing is that the women who received these revelations were named Mary which means rebellion.
The meanings of names were important and meaningful in that ancient culture. They were relevant to characters in the stories.

That is one theory as to the etymology of "Mary." Or more accurately, Miriam from the Hebrew--the language the OT was originally written in.

It could also mean "wishes for child."

This I believe is the correct one.

http://www.behindthename.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 8:29:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Intriguing idea about the Gospel writer being of XX chromosomes.

But highly doubtful.

Back then the iliteracy rate for Jews was about 90%

For women, who as I said were usually perceived as second class citizens and thus deemed unworthy of getting educated, I bet it was even higher.

Do you know that the Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to JC's mom.

But rather the birth of Mary?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 9:40:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 8:26:20 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 8:20:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/16/2015 8:06:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Perhaps. Who knows what they were trying to say? There is so much allegory and metaphor in the bible--indeed, the vast majority of it--that sometimes it is difficult to discern what they were trying to convey to us.

That is what makes it a such a controversial classic which is still read and debated today.
You need to admit that kind of writing is brilliant.
When words can be interpreted in different ways, I find it interesting to discover how many ways readers interpret them.
Obviously it is not hard for different people to glean different things from the same story.

I doubt it though. Seems to "liberal" for 1st Century Jews. As there's was without a doubt a male-dominated society. For good or bad, that is the way it was.
Not mind you, as bad and misogynistic as the radical mooslims are; especially wacko cults like the Taliban and Sharia Law. But still.


Just because a society is male dominated does not mean some of those male writers were liberal thinkers. Creative liberal thinkers exist in every society. I doubt there is ever a society or time in history when opposites did not exist.
There is also the possibility that an anonymous writer might have been a woman using a male name as a pseudonym. How would anyone know if the writer did all they could to remain anonymous?

An interesting thing is that the women who received these revelations were named Mary which means rebellion.
The meanings of names were important and meaningful in that ancient culture. They were relevant to characters in the stories.

That is one theory as to the etymology of "Mary." Or more accurately, Miriam from the Hebrew--the language the OT was originally written in.

It could also mean "wishes for child."

This I believe is the correct one.

http://www.behindthename.com...

Interesting that you want to believe that particular one is correct when the article says
" The meaning is not known for certain, but there are several theories including "sea of bitterness", "rebelliousness", and "wished for child". "

What makes you determine one "theory" or meaning to be more correct than another?

When words have an assortment of meanings, it is not hard to read whatever you want into them.

Anyway, back to the resurrection topic. Since we are talking about meanings of words I decided to check the lexicon ( Strong's G386 - anastasis)
for the meaning of resurrection.
The strongs definition........
an-as'-tas-is; from G450; a standing up again, i.e.
(literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)),
or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):

I am inclined to go with the concept of the moral recovery of truth than with any literal dead bodies physically rising out of the graves.