The Resurrection

[robbie]

How, as non-Christians, are we to understand the stories surrounding Jesus' supposed Resurrection? It seems to me this is one of the most convincing arguments in favour of Christianity. As something that supposedly occurred 2000 years ago, there is little real evidence, of course, and it would be easy to dismiss.

 

But if the Resurrection didn't happen then surely the Apostles must have all lied about it. Why? What did they have to gain?

Did Jesus really die?

Was there a sort of mass-hysteria or hypnosis which convinced the Apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead?

 

[Guest]

It's just a re-hashing of older pagan god-men dying and rising. Nothing new, nothing real. Just a story. No "real" people were involved.

 

The stories we have are not eyewitness accounts, and what we do have does not agree on very important details like who was there to witness the risen jesus and what they found at the tomb. It is not the least bit convincing of an argument, IMO.

[Guest MonkeySee]

This is what I found many of my Christian friends didn't seem to get and I'm sure you obviously know as well. None of it is a first hand account. For me, when de-programming, reading about all of the other sun (son) Gods rising from the dead really sealed the deal. Why aren't those stories given the same note in history? They cover the same idea. It's all recycled mythology.

[Japedo]

It's just a re-hashing of older pagan god-men dying and rising. Nothing new, nothing real. Just a story. No "real" people were involved.

 

The stories we have are not eyewitness accounts, and what we do have does not agree on very important details like who was there to witness the risen jesus and what they found at the tomb. It is not the least bit convincing of an argument, IMO.

 

Agree. I mean their are 'eyewitness' accounts to both ghosts and aliens but does it mean we blindly believe it?

 

The dying to save man and raising godman existed long before the Christian version Attis is an example, who oddly enough has the same birthday (Dec 25). Easter is in the spring,(Vernal Equinox) Same exact time as pagan celebrations. Other pagan aspects, Istar represents the goddess of fertility which is where our eggs and bunnies come from. Spring is the time to celebrate life as everything wakes up from it's winter hibernation. There is no more proof Christ rose from the dead then their is Attis. Christianity is a copy-cat religion, there is not one thing original in its belief system.

[Piprus]

The New Testament Jebus is a fictional character, built on the ancient godman myth, as others have said. The "apostles" didn't lie about it because they were likely fictional characters as well. (There were twelve, of course, for the twelve signs of the zodiac. After all, we're talking about the "sun-god" here.) No mass hysteria, no hypnosis, just a story crafted from eastern mythological traditions. The resurrection never happened.

[robbie]

Obviously there are a lot of striking similarities with older religions, definitely enough to believe Christianity is based largely on them. Thanks for pointing them out everyone.

 

But, how can Jesus possibly be a fictional character if there are non-Apostolic and non-Christian historians talking about him? It seems pretty obvious historically that someone making some extraordinary claims called Jesus existed around that time in Palestine....doesn't it? Isn't it abundantly clear from Roman and Jewish sources among others that the Apostles were all very real individuals too?

 

And, given that some of the New Testament books date back to around 60 AD (???), how is it possible to pretend someone existed 30 years ago--well within living memory--if he didn't? Or to make things up about him? And if someone did deliberately lie about these things, why? Why would they die for them if they knew they were false?

 

Sorry about all the questions...I really can't get my head around this one.

[Ouroboros]

Which non-Apostolic and non-Christian historians are you referring to? The ones that are usually referred to were born many years after Jesus supposedly death, so how they can have any first hand experience even with the eyewitnesses is beyond me.

 

What about Philo from Alexandria, that was a religious philosopher and Jew, and probably spent some time in Jerusalem during the time Jesus was popular. Philo wrote about Logos, and the early Christians saved his works, and the Gospel of John is most likely inspired by some of Philo's works. Did Philo write about Jesus? No. Did Philo ever claim he met Jesus? No. It is a very strange situation when you have a very religious Jew that want to understand the Torah, and are discussing the ideas of the reveal word from God etc, etc, and living at the same time, and never even heard about Jesus or his disciples? Not one word. Something is not right if you really think about it. It's like a historian and US culture professor in our time, begin extremely interested in politics and the world situation, living in our time right now, would not write about 9/11 or Bush at all. Would that make sense? No it wouldn't, unless the explanation is that the stories about Jesus and the disciples are not accurate.

 

The earliest Gospels are around 70 CE or later (probably later). The early fragments are from Paul's letters. Paul lived at the same time as Jesus, but he didn't write that he ever met Jesus in person. He talks about Jesus in more metaphysical terms. Some of Paul's letters are also questionable if he really did write.

 

If the disciples really did exist, and Jesus did the things he did, wouldn't they have written the Gospels immediately after the events? Why wait so long? And why wait until Paul had spread his version of the Gospel for 40 years? If Jesus was the Son of God, and he hand picked the disciples, then he was pretty bad in judging people. He could have picked Paul from start and had someone write the Gospel while he was preaching etc. Like a news report. But nope, God decided to wait 40 years. It does not make sense.

[Dave]

How, as non-Christians, are we to understand the stories surrounding Jesus' supposed Resurrection?......

I take a much different approach to this than most around here do. As a non christian I have no need to understand any of the stories in the bible or any other religious text. I don't care what their stories are since I'm not part of that religion.

[robbie]

So...what happened? Who invented the story and when?

 

HanSolo,

 

Well, the only one I can think of at the moment is Josephus, but I think I recall something about him being unreliable because he copied others or his works were forged....??

 

And supposedly the Apostles (or whoever) didn't write the gospels down because they thought Jesus was returning imminently...at least that's the Christian explanation.

[currentchristian]

The New Testament Jebus is a fictional character, built on the ancient godman myth, as others have said. The "apostles" didn't lie about it because they were likely fictional characters as well. (There were twelve, of course, for the twelve signs of the zodiac. After all, we're talking about the "sun-god" here.) No mass hysteria, no hypnosis, just a story crafted from eastern mythological traditions. The resurrection never happened.

 

Who created the story? When? How? Why? Why did they create four stories? What did they allow contradictions in the story? Why did they compose their characters so realistically (e.g., the human foibles of Peter, the doubt of Thomas, etc.)? Is there any evidence for this "Jesus is fiction" view? Are there any extant manuscripts of this sect or group or person who created the various fictional characters or manuscripts that show the outlines of the story being devloped? Which musuem houses them? What was the name of this group? Was Paul in on it? Or was he fictional, too? What was their motive?

 

What I'm getting at is that the same standard one holds others to one should hold himself to. It is reasonable to say, "I just don't know." It is unreasonable to say, "There was no Jesus" or "Jesus is just what the Bible says." One has a right to be unreasonable, of course, and in fact embracing the unreasonable position that Jesus rose from the dead is what makes one, such as myself, Christian. But those who accuse Christians of believing things for which there is no evidence do precisely the same when they believe these wild tales. Seems to me. No offense meant.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Obviously there are a lot of striking similarities with older religions, definitely enough to believe Christianity is based largely on them. Thanks for pointing them out everyone.

 

But, how can Jesus possibly be a fictional character if there are non-Apostolic and non-Christian historians talking about him? It seems pretty obvious historically that someone making some extraordinary claims called Jesus existed around that time in Palestine....doesn't it? Isn't it abundantly clear from Roman and Jewish sources among others that the Apostles were all very real individuals too?

 

And, given that some of the New Testament books date back to around 60 AD (???), how is it possible to pretend someone existed 30 years ago--well within living memory--if he didn't? Or to make things up about him? And if someone did deliberately lie about these things, why? Why would they die for them if they knew they were false?

 

Sorry about all the questions...I really can't get my head around this one.

 

Excellent questions. You might want to read the "Was Jesus Real? topic in which many of these points were discussed.

 

Paul's letters date to 20 years after Jesus lived. That's a mighty close timeframe. Of course Paul may have been greatly deceived. He may not have been correct. But Paul existed and the Jesus he tells about did, too. (Even if not at all what the gospels and Paul say he was.)

 

Seems to me.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

If the disciples really did exist, and Jesus did the things he did, wouldn't they have written the Gospels immediately after the events? Why wait so long? And why wait until Paul had spread his version of the Gospel for 40 years? If Jesus was the Son of God, and he hand picked the disciples, then he was pretty bad in judging people. He could have picked Paul from start and had someone write the Gospel while he was preaching etc. Like a news report. But nope, God decided to wait 40 years. It does not make sense.

 

No one knows when the gospels were written. No one, no matter how many letters are behind their names or how long they've been preachin' the Word can say with certified certainty.

 

But we must remember that the dating of the gospels is all over the map.

 

My reading of the timeline leads me to accept a date for the writing of Mark and Luke of about 60 C.E. That's three decades after Jesus lived. I don't see a three-decade lapse between the event and the first manuscripts to be strange at all. Paul was writing within 20 years.

 

None of this means that Jesus was the Son of God or resurrected from the dead, of course. (These are matters of what one chooses to believe.)

 

-CC

[Japedo]

So...what happened? Who invented the story and when?

 

HanSolo,

 

Well, the only one I can think of at the moment is Josephus, but I think I recall something about him being unreliable because he copied others or his works were forged....??

 

And supposedly the Apostles (or whoever) didn't write the gospels down because they thought Jesus was returning imminently...at least that's the Christian explanation.

 

 

Robbie,

 

I think the best way to find the truth of the matter is study religions. The Jewish Religion of the predicted messiah wasn't suppose to be a godman, it's suppose to be a normal person, just a great leader like Moses.

 

The Romans and Greeks (which incidentally are the writers of the NT) incorporated their pagan gods and customs (such as holidays and rituals) into the Jewish writings. Nothing new under the sun is exactly true. Everything from the virgin birth, to the cross, Hell, communion, Christ dying for sins to save mankind, is adopted from the original Greek & Roman religions that pre-date Christianity. Oddly enough in the basement of the Vatican (so say's the History channel) there is an old pagan cemetery. How odd that they would build the holy city on pagan holy ground. The Church also voted as to what was going to be placed in the 'good book'. Kings and Church leaders believed what ever they declared it was good enough to be declared by god. So of course to go against the church or go against the kings ment to go against god.

 

Greeks and Romans eventually spilt because neither wanted the other to be the leader of the church.

[Piprus]

So...what happened? Who invented the story and when?

 

HanSolo,

 

Well, the only one I can think of at the moment is Josephus, but I think I recall something about him being unreliable because he copied others or his works were forged....??

 

And supposedly the Apostles (or whoever) didn't write the gospels down because they thought Jesus was returning imminently...at least that's the Christian explanation.

 

I don't think you can point to any one persons or even a few people. Rome became officially christianized in 325 AD by Emperor Constantine, and at that point the Roman church, receiving imperial power, proceeded to establish its "constitution" if you will, by canonizing what would be "official" bible. It would be a book to be used only by the priesthood, and higher level bishops in particular. It was off limits to the laypeople. Undoubtedly ancient texts were pilfered, interpolated, or re-written as needed.

 

The christians always can come up with an apologetic explanation. Whether you are willing to accept such explanations as true or purely conjectural is up to you. But there isn't anything in the scripture to support the explanation that early apostles didn't write anything because they thought the parousia would occur any day. So that sounds like utter bullshit.

 

Rather than take up miles of bandwidth with explanations, robbie, I would suggest this site: Christianity Revealed

Dr. Mike Magee's site is huge, but packed with information on how christianity developed. Magee proceeds from the premise that a "Jesus christ" type did exist, but that he was an essene, a normal human being in every sense, and an anti-Roman militant. I hope you read it. It's fascinating, and based on the questions you're posing here, should be a real eye-opener for you.

[robbie]

Thanks guys.

 

Will definitely have a look around that website...looks pretty interesting.

[Amanda]

But if the Resurrection didn't happen then surely the Apostles must have all lied about it. Why? What did they have to gain?

Did Jesus really die?

Was there a sort of mass-hysteria or hypnosis which convinced the Apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead?

Robbie, now that it seems quite evident that we have found the tomb of Jesus, we can pretty much say that he didn't rise physically. Looking at the bible critically, it is a little more obvious in most cases he only rose in 'spirit'. IMO, some serious tampering/misinterpretations went on. :wink:

 

The ones that are usually referred to were born many years after Jesus supposedly death, so how they can have any first hand experience even with the eyewitnesses is beyond me.

Hey HanSolo, one of my most favorite guys... don't you remember?

 

"He's dead. Get over it."

 

Additionally HanSolo, it is hard to keep primary resources concerning a cult that any evidence of association to it warranted your death. IMO, it's difficult to preserve something we all think is wonderful to have for 2000 years, so how can something be kept for which one is highly persecuted?

 

Plus, any primary resources that does come up to prove the existence of Jesus, the Christians distroy it. Such as the Tibbetan Buddhists who claim he visited India and is in their sacred documents. Even now that we've found his tomb, the Christians want to distroy that as evidence too. Gosh, both ends are against the poor guy!

 

We use to think Imhotep was a myth too, till fairly recently. I agree that myths have been superimposed on "Jesus", probably worse than St. Nicholas to Santa Claus.

 

No one knows when the gospels were written. No one, no matter how many letters are behind their names or how long they've been preachin' the Word can say with certified certainty.

Current Christian, an additianl problem is we don't know what has been added or subtracted either. Certainly cultural myths have been added as these teachings spread throughout different belief systems. Have you ever had any discussions with Mythra? Studying other myths such as the Solar, Zorastrian, Pagan, and many more, it rings all too familiar. Heck, did you know that Amen was an Egyptian God? Perhaps you might want to look it up the next time you pray in Jesus name, Amen.

[R. S. Martin]

But, how can Jesus possibly be a fictional character if there are non-Apostolic and non-Christian historians talking about him? It seems pretty obvious historically that someone making some extraordinary claims called Jesus existed around that time in Palestine....doesn't it? Isn't it abundantly clear from Roman and Jewish sources among others that the Apostles were all very real individuals too?

 

I haven't read all the responses yet but I have to respond to these questions because I, too, have struggled long and hard with them.

 

Have you ever heard about the Greco-Roman Mystery Religions? If not, do a search on "greco roman mystery religions". (This link may take to to the results I got for my search. I just copied the phrase and it may be live for all I know.)

 

I took a course on this a few years ago. There seem to have been a lot of "new religions" (known today as greco roman mystery religions) approximately two thousand years ago. Most of these died out but Christianity survived. Scholars are still working on the question of why this one survived. It seems Mithraism is being revived at the moment. There were very many others.

 

Via research for a paper for this course I found a very interesting passage on the internet that was written roughly the same time as the later parts of the NT. Perhaps a century or two later. In it, an educated man tells the story of a man who died as a hero of the faith (not Christianity; some kind of philosophical school, I think). The writer of the story tells how he embellished the story for the uneducated but kept closer to the actual facts when talking to educated men. (Women did not get an education.)

 

Here is that part of the story:

 

38. As I returned, I was thinking busily, my friend, reflecting what a strange thing love of glory isl how this passion alone is unescapeable even by those who are considered wholly admirable, let alone that man who in other respects had led a life that was insane and reckless, and not undeserving of the fire. Then I encountered many people coming out to see the show themselves, for they expected to find him still alive. You see, on the day before it had been given out that he would greet the rising sun, as in fact they say the Brahmans do, before mountin the pyre. Well, I turned back most of them by saying the deed had been done already, those to whom it was not in itself highly desirable to see the actual spot, anyhow, and gather up some relic of the fire. In that business I assure you, my friend, I had no end of trouble, telling the story to all while they asked questions and sought exact information. Whenever I noticed a man of taste, I would tell him the facts without embellishment, as I have to you, but for the benefit of the dullards, agog to listen, I would thicken the plot a bit on my own account, saying that when the pyre was kindled and Proteus flung himself bodily in, a great earthquake first took place, accompanied by a bellowing of the ground, and then a vulture, flying up out of the midst of the flames, went off to Heaven,³⁴ saying, in human speech, with a loud voice:

 

"I am through with the earth; to Olympus I fare."

 

They were wonder-struck and blessed themselves with a shudder, and asked me whether the vulture sped eastwards or westwards; I made them whatever reply occurred to me.

 

 

 

34. At the death of Plato and of Augustus it was an eagle; in the case of Polycarp, a dove.

 

40. On my return to the festival, I came upon a grey-haired man whose face, I assure you, inspired confidence in addition to his beard and his general air of consequence, telling all about Proteus, and how, since his cremation, he had beheld him in white raiment a little while ago, and had just now left him walking about cheerfully in the Portico of the Seven Voices,³⁵ wearing a garland of wild olive. Then on top of it all, he put the vulture, swearing that he himself had seen it flying up out of the pyre, when I myself had just previously let it fly to ridicule fools and dullards. END OF QUOTE

 

It seems reasonable to believe that the New Testament stories about the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension developed in similar fashion. On to your next question.

 

And, given that some of the New Testament books date back to around 60 AD (???), how is it possible to pretend someone existed 30 years ago--well within living memory--if he didn't? Or to make things up about him? And if someone did deliberately lie about these things, why? Why would they die for them if they knew they were false?

 

My personal position is that Christianity was a Greco-Roman Mystery Religion adapted to the Jewish situation, and that around 60 AD/CE people started writing it down. It was so well liked (effective?) that Paul took it to the Gentiles.

 

I don't think anyone believed themselves to be lying. If everyone knows we're writing a tall tale, or even just historical fiction, why bother stating it every other page? Everyone at the time would have known exactly what kind of information they were talking about--it was probably not historical fiction.

 

I doubt that we in our day have anything that fits this type of information or genre of literature. We differentiate very sharply between the subjective and objective worlds, or between what is make-belief and what is "really" true or concrete reality. For some people today, which includes me, there is a third category: the spiritual realm.

 

I am still struggling to get a handle on what it was like for the early christians or Jesus people, but I am convinced that no one thought they were lying. Perhaps they thought they were writing allegories about ultimate reality. As such, it would have been just as appropriate for them to add or subtract things as it is for a minister these days telling the story in his/her own way.

 

Take, for example, the story about Jesus cleansing the temple. Today's ministers might tell the story with vivid elaborations about what the place "might have" looked like, based on what is known today about ancient society. No astute listening would take it as having happened exactly like that; they would understand that the minister added information to help listeners get a better idea of what the situation might have been, and therefore better get the point being made.

 

Because they thought they were talking about ultimate reality, it makes sense in my mind that people were willing to die for truth as they understood it.

 

Sorry about all the questions...I really can't get my head around this one.

 

You're not alone on this.

[R. S. Martin]

But, how can Jesus possibly be a fictional character if there are non-Apostolic and non-Christian historians talking about him?

 

I forgot to respond to the bolded part of this question.

 

I don't know if I am right but here is what I think. Given the world situation that anyone rejecting fundamentalist christianity's beliefs can be in mortal danger, it makes a great deal of sense for scholars of all stripes to try and get at the bottom of these beliefs.

 

There is naturally the hope that fundamentalists will respect facts. Fundies profess to accept facts but it is becoming increasingly evident that they reject or explain away facts that could disprove their religion. All the same, it is hoped/believed that if anything is going to work it will be facts and logic. I think that is the answer to your question but I could be wrong.

 

I personlly think if facts and logic were going to do the trick they would have already done it. But they haven't. Thus I am looking for other possibilities.

[Ouroboros]

So...what happened? Who invented the story and when?

I think that's the wrong view. I'm not sure if someone intentionally invented the whole story. It was something that was building up, added on, and modified. Embellished, like a legend.

 

Well, the only one I can think of at the moment is Josephus, but I think I recall something about him being unreliable because he copied others or his works were forged....??

When did Josephus live? He was born 37 AD and died around 100 AD. So when he was 20, it was already 24 years after the event. That's like me trying to write the truth about the start of Microsoft, based on rumours. Imagine if I had to do that, but had no documents, only "eyewitnesses" or people that claimed to be such from that time. How can I know they are eyewitnesses to the foundation of Microsoft? First of all I need proof. Second I need a hell a lot of eyewitnesses to be certain. And I would write it as an investigative study of the subject, not a story where I claim to be the eyewitness. It would sound more like "and Peter told me that he went to the mountain", not "and then they went to the mountain". The Gospels are written like a novel, not like a story someone is telling from their own memory. For instance how would the author know what Jesus said and what Satan said in the desert? Well, if Jesus told the author, why doesn't he book say Jesus told him? He does in the other places, "and Jesus told them", and Jesus tells the characters of the story, not the author of the book. It all reads like a fiction story, not like a historical event.

 

And supposedly the Apostles (or whoever) didn't write the gospels down because they thought Jesus was returning imminently...at least that's the Christian explanation.

If they were, then they were wrong. What else could they have been wrong about? Were they lied to by Jesus about the imminent return, or where they fooled? Or maybe Jesus picked idiots?

 

If the story is true, then they would not have believed the imminent return, but have been full of the Holy Spirit and Truth. Now if they didn't believe in the imminent return and the Holy Spirit and Truth gave them the understanding it would take thousands of years, then the Holy Spirit could have told them to write it down immediately. Heck, even Jesus could have told them, unless maybe he wasn't the son of god...

[Ouroboros]

Who created the story? When? How? Why? Why did they create four stories?

Not four. Many more. You don't approve the other Gospels because the contradict, but you allow these four because they contradict? What makes the other gospels (Thomas, Judas etc..) less "gospelish"? Is it because of a councils voting or because there's some clear difference between them? Maybe it's divided by "faith", which means delusion decides what is delusion and not. But if the delusion is wrong?

 

What did they allow contradictions in the story? Why did they compose their characters so realistically (e.g., the human foibles of Peter, the doubt of Thomas, etc.)? Is there any evidence for this "Jesus is fiction" view? Are there any extant manuscripts of this sect or group or person who created the various fictional characters or manuscripts that show the outlines of the story being devloped? Which musuem houses them? What was the name of this group? Was Paul in on it? Or was he fictional, too? What was their motive?

It started as oral traditions, and later when different churches grew, each one of the wrote down what they remembered from the oral tradition. That's why they are similar, but yet different, because each church added their own little flavor and spin to it. The churches with Essene influence made Jesus more Essene, and the ones with Hellenistic influence made Jesus more Greek philosopher, and so on.

 

It doubt there was one person or a group that intentionally wrote all Gospels. It all started (I think) with the Messianic (Chris) Jews that believed a Jesus (savior) would come and save them from the Romans. One guy came, they thought it was him, but he got killed, Jerusalem destroyed, and they couldn't take the anticlimax or lose their faith, so the Jesus character had to be reformed to still fit, so the salvation was not the physical Jerusalem or Israel anymore, but a spiritual one, and of course he must have done it, since they were sure he was sent from God to save them (but failed).

 

What I'm getting at is that the same standard one holds others to one should hold himself to. It is reasonable to say, "I just don't know." It is unreasonable to say, "There was no Jesus" or "Jesus is just what the Bible says." One has a right to be unreasonable, of course, and in fact embracing the unreasonable position that Jesus rose from the dead is what makes one, such as myself, Christian. But those who accuse Christians of believing things for which there is no evidence do precisely the same when they believe these wild tales. Seems to me. No offense meant.

(a little sarcasm here)

So why not believe Buddha was resurrected? After he died, he woke up spiritually and spoke to the people around him before his spirit flew up to the sky. It would be contradictory not to acknowledge that the eyewitnesses must have seen something. Oh, yes, there are other stories where his spirit did not wake up and speak to the folowers, but you know, those contradictions make the story more believable and it must be true since other stories say that he didn't.

(/end sarc)

[Ouroboros]

The ones that are usually referred to were born many years after Jesus supposedly death, so how they can have any first hand experience even with the eyewitnesses is beyond me.

Hey HanSolo, one of my most favorite guys... don't you remember?

 

"He's dead. Get over it."

Of course he is, they found his grave and his bones.

 

Additionally HanSolo, it is hard to keep primary resources concerning a cult that any evidence of association to it warranted your death. IMO, it's difficult to preserve something we all think is wonderful to have for 2000 years, so how can something be kept for which one is highly persecuted?

Not so hard, since the early (Jewish) Christians saved us the books by Philo. So if it wasn't too hard to save books by a religious philospher that didn't meet Jesus, then why not write books about the people that did meet Jesus and save those? Why go out of the way of saving heretic books and neither write nor save holy books?

 

If the whole story was important to God, then God would know that secondary sources (by heretics, enemies and "god-haters") would be every important to support the historicity of his son and his salvation. God would know it would be an issue, why else would the Catholic church spent hundreds of years to try to find and fake evidence. God failed utterly in his plan, or he is intentionally wanting everyone to be in the dark. Just like the evidence for evolution, either God didn't create man, or he planted evidence against creationism.

[currentchristian]

Not four. Many more. You don't approve the other Gospels because the contradict, but you allow these four because they contradict? What makes the other gospels (Thomas, Judas etc..) less "gospelish"? Is it because of a councils voting or because there's some clear difference between them? Maybe it's divided by "faith", which means delusion decides what is delusion and not. But if the delusion is wrong?

 

Good to interact again, HanSolo.

 

Actually, I neither accept nor reject the other gospels or the scriptures of other religions. I read them, am sometimes inspired by them, sometimes amused by them, sometimes confused by them, just as I am when I read the canonical Hebrew-Christian scriptures. True enough, I have chosen to ally myself more closely with the canonical texts, but it does not follow at all that others are in any sense of the word rejected. In my "study room" I have all sorts of inspirational texts from all sorts of religions and I have a Muslim prayer rug, Jewish keepah and prayer shawl. I'm really ecumenical!!

 

So why not believe Buddha was resurrected? After he died, he woke up spiritually and spoke to the people around him before his spirit flew up to the sky. It would be contradictory not to acknowledge that the eyewitnesses must have seen something. Oh, yes, there are other stories where his spirit did not wake up and speak to the folowers, but you know, those contradictions make the story more believable and it must be true since other stories say that he didn't.

(/end sarc)

 

Well, I shall not answer so sarcastically!

 

I do not believe in or disbelieve in the Buddha. I read the Buddha's words, am inspired by them, and like very much Buddhist psychology. I am agnostic, I guess, about religions, while fastening my safety belt to the one person I believe was dead but is now alive. Just me.

 

-CC

[Ouroboros]

Good answer CC.

[mwc]

[snip passage]

It seems reasonable to believe that the New Testament stories about the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension developed in similar fashion.

I love it. Of course the xians will say that none of their TRUE adherents would ever embellish the important stuff that wound up in the bible. Only the stuff that was heresy could be in this category.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Oddly enough in the basement of the Vatican (so say's the History channel) there is an old pagan cemetery. How odd that they would build the holy city on pagan holy ground.

Actually, building new churches/temples/whatever on the sites (footprints) of the existing ones was really common practice. That's why the Dome of the Rock (for example) is shaped like a pagan temple (to Jupiter) instead of the Jewish temple. The Muslims didn't realize the Romans replaced the Jewish temple with their own when they came along I guess? Anyhow, that's why so many great pagan temples were destroyed/defaced by both xian/muslims over the centuries. We're lucky that they couldn't expend the energy to obliterate things like the Temple of Karnak and only put an ugly mosque in it.

 

I've heard that the Vatican is built over the last Mithric temple and site of the last official sacrifice of a bull. I saw a video (many years ago) of the last pope going to the opening of a cave under the Vatican and declaring he wouldn't enter it because it was "evil" and off limits. At the time I agreed with his decision (although I was Lutheran) but now I'd LOVE to get a shot at that tunnel.

 

mwc