Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Did Belief In Jesus' Resurrection Get Started?


orlando

Recommended Posts

I think Neon Genesis's arguments make good sense - MWC, you just seem a bit determined to rubbish anything that doesn't fit with your certainty that Jesus didn't exist. Why do you have to be dogmatic about it? Yes, there isn't a huge amount of really good evidence about the historical Jesus, but that doesn't therefore mean he certainly didn't exist. I get the impression you have a need to hold a definite opinion one way or the other and can't cope with a bit of doubt and grey areas.

If I'm to give into these grey areas, and the same applies to you of course, then we wouldn't have a need to discuss any of this now would we? We could all just throw up our hands a concede to the other side but that would make things rather dull I think.

 

We're talking (for arguments sake, I'm saying he existed) about a preacher who grew up in rustic villages in ancient times, who died young quite shortly after he took it into his head to start preaching the coming Kingdom (and legends then grew up about him) - and we don't have a lot of solid evidence about him. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, it just means we have to make do with looking for hints about him - subtle things like these embarrassment criteria. If we had really obvious evidence about him we wouldn't need to use things like that, so to ask for evidence that using embarrassment criteria is successful is not very productive. Such proof would be the kind of solid things - a hand-written first century copy of a Gospel according to Jesus, for example - that we don't have. However it certainly makes intuitive good sense that if you are writing about someone who is your personal hero you probably don't make up things that put them in a dubious light.

You wish to tell me that you know what is a cause of embarrassment for the authors of some anonymous texts roughly 2000 years ago. You're quite certain you have that ability?

 

We have no idea if this "jesus" was the "personal hero" of any of these authors. Using your very own criteria maybe the purpose of the "original" story was to embarrass and not to, in any way, be embarrassed? Can you state the intent of the author(s)?

 

I personally do think it is interesting that Mark, thought to be the earliest gospel, has John "proclaiming a baptism of repentence for the forgiveness of sins" and then Jesus turning up to take part; the same Jesus who he has just called "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." I think Josephus's passage about John reads convincingly as history, and it is not generally questioned by anyone, so I am convinced there is good evidence he existed. I find it quite likely that getting baptised by John - who was supposedly a relative - who was himself preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, started Jesus off on his own mission to do something similar.

G.Mark never has these two as relatives. That's G.Luke's invention. And JtB would be only 6 months older than "jesus" so how long was one preaching prior to the other?

 

Josephus was born ~37CE so any information he had about JtB would not have come first hand. Philo fails to mention John but this can be excused. Josephus would have gotten his information from another source. His information is "authentic" in that it doesn't appear to have been placed there by someone else. Josephus writes about, though he doesn't quite believe it, the battle that takes place in the clouds prior to the siege on Jerusalem. It's authentic. Did it happen?

 

Re. the historical Jesus, we have to just go on a balance of probabilities. If most of the evidence, for example, showed clearly that the first Christians worshipped a deity called Christ who was never supposed to have had a recent life on earth and no one from around the 1st Century or start of the second actually claimed to have met him or his apostles, then the myth theory would be a no-brainer, but as things are, it isn't.

You've no idea what the "first Christians" did. None of us do.

 

You assume that there was a church that launched from some "event" that is supported by four late texts and some writings by a person that is assumed to write during the early phases of the movement. A person that states he based his beliefs on "visions" but then also states that he was passing on information the same way he got it. This could indicate that he's just passing along established doctrines with his own ideas tossed-in.

1 Corinthians 15

 

18 And, in addition, the dead in Christ have gone to destruction.

How many of these would there be to worry about it? Much like that "500" number where most were supposedly still alive? Enough to warrant the mention I guess.

 

If he was told that a man had just died and come back to life, in his prior body, then Paul would certainly not write:

1 Corinthians 15

 

49 And in the same way as we have taken on us the image of the man from the earth,
so we will take on us the image of the one from heaven.
50 Now I say this, my brothers, that it is not possible for flesh and blood to have a part in the kingdom of God;
and death may not have a part in life. 51 See,
I am giving you the revelation of a secret
: we will not all come to the sleep of death, but
we will all be changed.
52 In a second, in the shutting of an eye, at the sound of the last horn: for at that sound the dead will come again, free for ever from the power of death, and we will be changed. 53 For this body which comes to destruction will be made free from the power of death, and the man who is under the power of death will put on eternal life.

If "flesh and blood" is not allowed then what is this new body that required an open tomb but could still enter a closed room and eat food? Nothing that Paul knew about. The natural body would need the open tomb and would eat food. The open tomb story didn't convince anyone of anything but the food story kept people from thinking this "spirit" body was really just a ghost (I guess...since the text mentions it).

 

But does Paul say so? I've said it before but I'll say it again:

1 Corinthians 15

 

35 But someone will say, How do the dead come back? and with what sort of body do they come? 36 Foolish man, it is necessary for the seed which you put into the earth to undergo death in order that it may come to life again: 37 And when you put it into the earth, you do not put in the body which it will be, but only the seed, of grain or some other sort of plant; 38 But God gives it a body, as it is pleasing to him, and to every seed its special body.

Seeds are planted. They die. They come back to life. The seed is in a different "body" than what comes back out of the ground. That's "god's" job. He then goes on to mention the various unique bodies of animals and the like.

 

This brings us back to us. We have a "natural" body. We have a "spirit" body too. We will "die" then we will "come back to life." Just like the seed. The body we will have will be, like the seed, "changed," and not "flesh and blood" but like the "image from heaven." What is that one like? Ask Paul. The seed analogy makes it clear that it will be up to "god" to provide that unique body to us. It should also be as different from our current bodies as the seed is from the plant. The analogy is a simply one. The change will occur if you are alive and if you are dead you also get changed. Both count as a "resurrection" to Paul it seems. The old body simply needs to be done away with and the new body needs to come in its place. Like the seed all that is required is this "change."

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mwc

    40

  • orlando

    32

  • Neon Genesis

    27

  • Shyone

    9

The whole thing stinks to me.

 

All of the narratives seem to suggest some form of supernatural revelation to JtB - the very kind of thing that is not given to anyone today, and the kind of thing that would demonstrate unequivocally the divinity of Jesus, but then this is embarrassing:

 

Mat: 11

2. When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples

3. to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"

 

WTF!?

 

That sure doesn't square with this:

 

1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

When you use variants for some of these words you'll find that "John" (Jonah or "Yownah"...something like that...someone can check my Hebrew) is "dove" and so on. The story "stinks" on many levels but we'll take it literally because that's what we're supposed to do and make it work (or make it embarrassing because it doesn't work when taken literally which makes it real). Ironically "jesus" starts blathering on about the "sign of Jonah" which becomes some stupid shit about being dead for three days/nights (which he doesn't do) instead of it being about a "dove" which might be about the spirit which makes more sense in light of his "mission." But whatever. That's all embarrassing. What's also embarrassing is that "jesus" just knows that JtB is Elijah no matter how many times JtB says he just isn't. Embarrassing...so true. More embarrassing stuff is Herod the tetrarch offering half his kingdom knowing full well that Tiberius wouldn't allow him to do such a thing. The idea that "jesus" would have the purple put on him during his beating. Purple was far too valuable, for only certain classes and they had spies watch the makers so no one could simply get ahold of the stuff. Pilate and Herod surely wouldn't allow theirs to be used and neither would any other noble. Embarrassing...so true.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he, or the other early Christians, thought Jesus just resuscitated, I think they thought, like the seed analogy, his earthly body transformed into a powerful "spiritual" one, but that there was no earthly body left, same as there is no seed left when the plant has grown. What they believed about him had to be different from just the soul going out of the body, which would have been believed was what happened to everyone in the normal course of things.

 

And all this certainly does not show that Paul thought Jesus never had a physical body - quite the opposite. A physical body that was "of the house of David according to the flesh", that was believed to have celebrated a last supper with his disciples before being crucified etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible that some hippie type rabble rouser named Jesus existed, and that, as stories about him were passed on, they got a little embellishment each time, until somebody decided to make him another messiah. It was a messiah-friendly time and place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Josephus was born ~37CE so any information he had about JtB would not have come first hand. Philo fails to mention John but this can be excused. Josephus would have gotten his information from another source. His information is "authentic" in that it doesn't appear to have been placed there by someone else. Josephus writes about, though he doesn't quite believe it, the battle that takes place in the clouds prior to the siege on Jerusalem. It's authentic. Did it happen?

 

 

But isn't Josephus' account of John the Baptist different than the gospels? If I'm remembering correctly, Josephus has John be killed because he raised a rebellion against King Herod but the gospels had John executed because he said you shouldn't sleep with someone else's wife. So is Josephus working from a different tradition about John the baptist than the gospels or why is his account different from the gospels?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he, or the other early Christians, thought Jesus just resuscitated, I think they thought, like the seed analogy, his earthly body transformed into a powerful "spiritual" one, but that there was no earthly body left, same as there is no seed left when the plant has grown. What they believed about him had to be different from just the soul going out of the body, which would have been believed was what happened to everyone in the normal course of things.

 

And all this certainly does not show that Paul thought Jesus never had a physical body - quite the opposite. A physical body that was "of the house of David according to the flesh", that was believed to have celebrated a last supper with his disciples before being crucified etc.

At least one gospel goes to great lengths to claim that the resurrection of Jesus was physical and bodily:

 

Luke 24:

38. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

39. Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

 

Even the open tomb suggests the physical resurrection because a ghost would not be hampered by mere stone walls.

 

But other places show the body can pass through walls and appear/disappear. Sounds like they should have gotten their shit together before they started writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that when Paul talks about a "spiritual body" he means something more than what we today usually think of as a "spirit" (or even what the people of Jesus' time thought of as the spirit that went out of people when they died). It means something that is at once solid, but also immortal and pretty much omnipotent - it's kind of like Superman, but can also go through walls and appear and disappear if the person feels like it... It is what people are supposed to get the the Second Coming and the Resurrection from the Dead. This kind of body is often referred to as a "glorious"one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found these notes I made a while ago when I was looking for things suggestive of Paul believing Jesus and his apostles and family etc really lived - for what it is worth.

 

 

The “historical Jesus” – did Paul only believe in a mythological Jesus whose sacrifice took place in some legendary past or spiritual realm? – as claimed by eg Jesus Never Existed and The Jesus Puzzle.

 

I don’t think so. My opinion is that Paul existed as a historical figure – I have only very rarely seen this disputed and don’t think any academic scholars dispute it, and his personality comes through clearly in the letters – and that his letters are probably the earliest Christian source – 1st century. They tally up with comments in Acts – that he was a Jew who persecuted the Christians but converted after a vision of Christ/ that he met leaders of the church in Jerusalem including Peter, who he refers to as Cephas.

 

I think Paul appears to know little about Jesus, but this may not be surprising as he only had rare meetings with the leaders in Jerusalem and admits himself that he is interested mainly in preaching Christ crucified, the Saviour. I think he sees Jesus as someone who lived not long ago and was literally crucified – a specific “modern” method of Roman execution, not something the Messiah was especially expected to undergo. I think he sees Christ as in some way God’s son, however says that we too will be adopted as God’s sons if we are faithful. I don’t think he is Trinitarian – he sees God the father as greater than his son. I think he thinks the faithful dead go to be with Jesus in Heaven and then at a specific point in history – not too far off, but at an unknown date – Jesus will come back to earth and will raise the faithful who were in spirit form in Heaven into new glorious, immortal bodies, and they and the living faithful will enjoy a time when Christ will rule over the world.

 

He also calls himself Apostle to the Gentiles stressing his view is that Gentile converts are saved by faith and do not need to be circumsized or follow the letter of the Jewish law – he states that some other people, whose teaching he disagrees with, say the opposite and the churches he founded should not listen to them. This suggests some other Christians still saw their faith as more closely connected with Judaism, not a ne faith.

 

Some passages:

 

Romans 1

3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

Romans 3

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,

 

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Romans 5

6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

 

8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

Romans 6

4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

 

Romans 8

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

 

Romans 9

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

Romans 10

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

Romans 12

(Teaching of jesus?) 14Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

 

Romans 13

(Teaching of jesus? – however also found in OT) 8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

Romans 14

9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

(teaching of Jesus) 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

 

1 Corinthians

7So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

8Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

1 Corinthians 2

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

1 C 4

4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

 

1 C 6

14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

 

1 C 7

(quotes Jesus) 10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

 

1 C 9

1Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

 

1 C 9

(quotes Jesus)

13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

 

1 C 11

(describes Last Supper) 23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 

1 C 15

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

32If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

35But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

 

2 C 8

8I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.

9For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

 

2 C 11

3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

 

2 C 12

(believes soul can exist separately from body) 2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

 

Galatians 1

(didn’t spend much time with the disciples in Jerusalem) 13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24And they glorified God in me.

 

(says Peter, James and John agreed he could be apostle to the Gentiles) 7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

4

4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

 

Philippians 1

23For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

24Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

2

16Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

3

10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

20For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

21Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

Colossians 2

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

(Teaching of Jesus??) 16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

1If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

 

Thessalonians 1

9For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

10And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come

2

14For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

15Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

16Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

4

14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

5

14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

2 Thessalonians

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2

(believes in the Antichrist) 1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to jump in on this one, I haven't been following this topic, so I hope I'm not going to cause too big a bump in the thread. As far as there being a historical Jesus, I believe there *MAY* have been one, but with the wealth of "dead and rising messiah myths", it seems that even if there was a historical Jesus, he's wrapped up pretty damn tight in a bunch of myths, all from the virgin birth, to the miracles he performed, all the way to him rising from the dead.

 

I think when trying to understand how a Christ myth could be circulated and spread so widely, it's important to remember the culture and time in which it was born and grew. It's no different than alien sightings today. I'm not saying they're all fake stories, but I am saying there are some just to get attention. During the period of Jesus' alleged time on earth, the Jews were still a highly superstitious nation who had little scientific knowledge. Even historians of that time would have been influenced by the culture to some degree. There were probably a lot of people waiting for a messiah. Someone had to fit the bill. It could have been Apollonius or any other magician from that time, but as chance had it, it was another relatively unknown magician named Joshua.

 

Someone earlier in this thread likened Jesus to Santa. That's not so far off. Santa is based on a real historical person whose life is hidden behind myth. St. Nicholas was said to have raised a child from the dead, was said to have performed many miracles, and was a very generous man. Some of that was probably true, and some was obviously not. How did St. Nicholas become Santa? Probably the same way Joshua became Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't Josephus' account of John the Baptist different than the gospels? If I'm remembering correctly, Josephus has John be killed because he raised a rebellion against King Herod but the gospels had John executed because he said you shouldn't sleep with someone else's wife. So is Josephus working from a different tradition about John the baptist than the gospels or why is his account different from the gospels?

There were other people that existed at the time. Other xians. Other cults. Other "traditions" (whatever you wish to call them if not something related to religion but things that we may consider something more like "urban myths"). All these things existed and Josephus could have used them as source material without having to invoke "forgery" or tying them to existing gospel stories.

 

Anyhow, we've all read it but here's what Josephus has on JtB:

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

 

Just before this he says:

So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army.

So was his army destroyed as a punishment from god resulting as his killing of JtB or was it because of some "fugitives" from Philip's territory? (depending on when we date the battle Philip is no longer alive and his territory is now in the hands of Rome and his marriage to his wife is of no consequence since Philip had no children). I suppose we could assume that the "fugitives" were somehow associated with JtB but that isn't made clear here at all. And for Herod and Aretas to fight over "Gamalitis" is odd since that is way up near the Sea of Galilee, a long way from Petra, where Aretas was and inside Philip's territory (or Rome's once he died ~33/34 CE). Neither Herod nor Aretas had borders there at any time. It's a strange story.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “historical Jesus” – did Paul only believe in a mythological Jesus whose sacrifice took place in some legendary past or spiritual realm? – as claimed by eg Jesus Never Existed and The Jesus Puzzle.

Paul's "beliefs" seem to vary by letter (and possibly even within letters).

 

I don’t think so. My opinion is that Paul existed as a historical figure – I have only very rarely seen this disputed and don’t think any academic scholars dispute it, and his personality comes through clearly in the letters – and that his letters are probably the earliest Christian source – 1st century. They tally up with comments in Acts – that he was a Jew who persecuted the Christians but converted after a vision of Christ/ that he met leaders of the church in Jerusalem including Peter, who he refers to as Cephas.

Well with "academic scholars" involved we may as well move along to something debatable...

 

I think Paul appears to know little about Jesus, but this may not be surprising as he only had rare meetings with the leaders in Jerusalem and admits himself that he is interested mainly in preaching Christ crucified, the Saviour. I think he sees Jesus as someone who lived not long ago and was literally crucified – a specific “modern” method of Roman execution, not something the Messiah was especially expected to undergo. I think he sees Christ as in some way God’s son, however says that we too will be adopted as God’s sons if we are faithful. I don’t think he is Trinitarian – he sees God the father as greater than his son. I think he thinks the faithful dead go to be with Jesus in Heaven and then at a specific point in history – not too far off, but at an unknown date – Jesus will come back to earth and will raise the faithful who were in spirit form in Heaven into new glorious, immortal bodies, and they and the living faithful will enjoy a time when Christ will rule over the world.

Paul doesn't seem to mention any of this doctrine you've mentioned. Did I miss it in the mass of text you posted? There's a mention of the dead, followed by the living, going to heaven (in 1 Corinthians or Thessalonians...maybe both...I don't feel like looking). If you can figure out exactly what type of "body" Paul is describing then you have far more information than I do and should share. Paul makes plenty of references to crucifixion but he also mentions hanging on a tree and the problems, the curse, that brings. He mentions other, metaphorical, references to the cross too unless I'm to think those references are literal. Stranger things have happened. So you keep saying what you think but you've not supported any of it (except with some big blob of text that I suppose I was supposed to connect with your thoughts).

 

He also calls himself Apostle to the Gentiles stressing his view is that Gentile converts are saved by faith and do not need to be circumsized or follow the letter of the Jewish law – he states that some other people, whose teaching he disagrees with, say the opposite and the churches he founded should not listen to them. This suggests some other Christians still saw their faith as more closely connected with Judaism, not a ne faith.

One connection is made to Judaizers that forced circumcision onto people. If these were, in fact xians, then they were a later group mentioned by Josephus and came about the time of the war. That makes Paul and all these events much later than people would like to generally date them. But we *need* this to be far closer to Pilate since that is what these anonymous stories, that came around about the time of the war, says the original story happened. So that's when it happened. Not the more logical later time.

 

Some passages:

[snip]

I can't address all those naked verses. Did you expect me to? Can you tell me where Paul got that info with any certainty? We're told, by Paul, that he didn't learn anything by men so it's curious how he would have gained the info. If it were from "others" then where did they get it from? Nothing Paul says mentions any first-hand witnesses so we'll rely on later anonymous narratives to inform us that Paul's possible source(s) were actually vital first-hand witnesses that Paul failed to identify and rely on himself instead basing his ministry on "revelation." So please tell me that you have information that Paul *knew* rather than *believed* there was an actual, factual, historic "jesus" that died just a few scant years before he began his ministry.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MWC, have you ever considered a career in biblical scholarship or religious history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MWC, have you ever considered a career in biblical scholarship or religious history?

Why do you ask?

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because even if I disagree with your conclusions, you always seem to be a fountain of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't have posted that splurge of stuff, but it might interest someone I guess - it was just the main verses I came across a year or two back when I was looking at those letters taken by most scholars are genuine, and seeing if there were passages that suggested Paul thought Jesus was a flesh and blood historical figure, as opposed to those Jesus Myth people who claim that as he says little about a historical Jesus he must therefore have just seen him as existing in some spiritual realm. To my mind the passages I found don't suggest such an idea.

 

I'm not sure where I got the idea that Paul believed dead Christians went to Heaven to be with Jesus in spirit form, though the letters may say so somewhere, I can't remember. However it was certainly believed by some of the early Christians. However there were probably several ideas going around, as in Judaism - annihilation after death and before the resurrection, or at least some kind of unconscious "soul sleep", or going to Sheol (or the "Bosom of Abraham") etc, among them. The rest of what I said seems reasonable to me still. It wasn't meant to be proof of the historical Jesus though - but it does hint at it, as one of the arguments used by Mythers is the one that Paul is an early source and he allegedly rarely ("never" in some exaggerated Myther claims) mentions a historical Jesus, therefore this must mean there wasn't one. In fact he does seem to have believed in one. If he didn't say more about him it could be for several reasons - ie. talking about Jesus's life wasn't really the main thrust of what he wanted to do in most of his letters (he was rebuking and disciplining, boasting, giving reminders of his teachings etc), his main interest was in the died and risen Jesus as the supernatural saviour who was coming back to usher in the Kingdom, not the nitty-gritty about his earthly life, and he didn't meet him personally when he was alive, therefore he was more interested in the revelations he believed he had received directly from him, through visions, and these things were therfore the ones he focussed on telling people about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also helps to remember that we don't have the full conversations between Paul and the early Christians. The letters we have from Paul are like snippets from a larger dialog and we have to remember that when we're reading Paul's letters, we're not reading a textbook, we're reading one part of a conservation. Some of the letters even imply Paul may have written more that are now lost to us and it is believed there could have been four letters from Paul to the Corinthians. Who knows what Paul talked about with the early Christians on his daily visits with the churches that we'll never know about either because the letters were lost to us or because Paul never bothered to write it down. As Orlando points out, the primary purpose of Paul's letters is instructing on moral behavior and church doctrines, not history and for all we know Paul didn't write as much about the historical Jesus because the Christians he was writing to already knew about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think that's possible as well.

 

By the way, looking again at what Paul says, it seems he thought the dead to be "sleeping", whatever that precisely meant to him. NT Wright says that (according to him, ie. NT Wright, not necessarily Paul) dead Christians are in some sort of intermediate state, that is not actually unconciousness but that, compared to what it will be like in new glorious bodies after the resurrection is "like" sleep.

 

Various verses, like|:

 

1 Corinthians 15:51

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed

 

Ephesians 5:14

for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

 

1 Corinthians 11:30

That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

 

1 Corinthians 15:20

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:14

We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

1 Thessalonians 4:15

According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think that's possible as well.

 

By the way, looking again at what Paul says, it seems he thought the dead to be "sleeping", whatever that precisely meant to him. NT Wright says for example that (according to him) dead Christians are in some sort of intermediate state, that is not actually unconciousness but that, compared to what it will be like in new glorious bodies after the resurrection is "like" sleep.

 

Various verses, like|:

 

1 Corinthians 15:51

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed

 

Ephesians 5:14

for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

 

1 Corinthians 11:30

That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

 

1 Corinthians 15:20

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:14

We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

1 Thessalonians 4:15

According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

I think there is some progression of ideas about the second coming on Paul's part. He starts out thinking that "not all will die" but seems later to accept that the entire generation will be wiped out before Jesus' return. Perhaps he was aware of the prophecies that Jesus would return during the lifetime of the people alive at the time he said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What passages suggest to you he finally realised the whole generation would die before Jesus came back?

 

Yes, it is possible he had heard that Jesus had said "this generation will not pass away" etc. Or I guess it's possible Jesus didn't say it but Paul's teaching influenced the gospels. In any case, it does seem to have been the conviction of the earliest Christians that the end times were coming very soon. But we see in some of Paul's letters indications that people should not be too impatient (suggesting some people were getting to be) -- also, in 2 Peter, whenever that was written we can see what some people were saying:in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What passages suggest to you he finally realised the whole generation would die before Jesus came back?

Please forgive me for quoting another source, but I have a headache and the detailed analysis would make my head explode.

 

A careful study of the writings of the apostle Paul likewise demonstrates that Paul himself shifted his position from his earlier expectation of the imminent return of Christ to one of awareness that there might be a delay. In his earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians, Paul includes himself among those who would be alive when the Lord returns. He states first that those who have died in the Lord will be resurrected, and then adds: "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever" (4:17). In 1 Corinthians15:51 he says, "We will not all die, but we will be changed."

 

In his later letters, however, Paul seems to consider the possibility that he might not be alive when the Lord returns. In Philippians 1:20-21 he says, "Christ will be exalted now as always in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain." Paul still believed that the coming of was near (Philip 4:5), but he reckoned with the possibility that it may be beyond his own lifetime.

 

In Romans, another of Paul’s later writings and something of a theological summary of his preaching, Paul says hardly anything about the return of Christ. His whole emphasis is on the transforming power of Christ in the lives of believers in the present life. However, toward the end of the letter he makes this statement: "Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near. Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light" (13:11-12). Here Paul is aware that some time has passed and that salvation, i.e. the final consummation of salvation at the return of Christ, is nearer "than when we became believers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

What passages suggest to you he finally realised the whole generation would die before Jesus came back?

 

Yes, it is possible he had heard that Jesus had said "this generation will not pass away" etc. Or I guess it's possible Jesus didn't say it but Paul's teaching influenced the gospels. In any case, it does seem to have been the conviction of the earliest Christians that the end times were coming very soon. But we see in some of Paul's letters indications that people should not be too impatient (suggesting some people were getting to be) -- also, in 2 Peter, whenever that was written we can see what some people were saying:in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

On source I read said that Peter should be dated like to the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

By what MWC, do you say that crucifixion at passover was uncommon? What is your evidence for that claim? (I am not arguing, I just have never read that before and I am curious about it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Talking about what Paul believed, I read this awhile back in trying to look at what paul believed.

 

And I think this might be somewhat relevant to the discussion

 

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html

 

Many New Testament scholars have observed that the conception of the resurrection body implied in 1 Corinthians 15 clashes so violently with that presupposed in the gospels that the latter must be dismissed as secondary embellishments, especially as 1 Corinthians predates the gospels. Craig takes exception. The whole trend of his argument seems to me to belie the point he is ostensibly trying to make, namely that any differences between the two traditions do not imply that 1 Corinthians allows only sightings, subjective visions, while the gospels depict more fulsome encounters replete with dialogue, gestures, touching, and eating. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 rules out such scenes, he says. But surely the very urgency of the matter shows that Craig would feel himself at a great loss if he had to cut loose all those juicy gospel resurrection stories to be left with the skimpy list of terse notes in 1 Corinthians 15. By itself, 1 Corinthians 15 just wouldn't mean much. He wants the appearances of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 to be read as if they had in parentheses after them "See Luke 24; Matthew 28; John 21."

 

Of course Craig is muchly mistaken in thinking that this clash between 1 Corinthians and the gospels is the main reason New Testament critics dismiss the gospel Easter narratives as unhistorical. There are many reasons, including the gross contradictions of detail between them (scarcely less serious than those between the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke), the clear evidence of redactional creation and embellishment, etc. Suffice it to say Craig once again tries to oversimplify the problem, so that by solving the part of it he treats (if he does solve it), he can afford to ignore the rest of the problem.

 

Craig spends a lot of time in his essay "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus" addressing details of 1 Corinthians 15 and the history of its interpretation in a reasonable and credible way.[12] I have no quarrel with his rejection of Bultmann's existentializing reading of swma as "selfhood," when it must mean body in a substantial sense. (But, ironically, we will see below that Craig is unwilling to let sarx mean simply "flesh"!) My problem comes when Craig starts trying to harmonize the flesh-versus-spirit contradiction between Luke 24:39 and 1 Corinthians 15:50. Put simply, both Luke and 1 Corinthians pose the alternative of "spirit versus flesh" as possible modes of the risen Jesus, but whereas Luke has Jesus say, "No spirit has flesh and bones as you see me having," 1 Corinthians says "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (15:50) and "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (15:45).

 

There are two major steps in his argument. First Craig must try to empty the term "spiritual body" (predicated of the risen Jesus) of any connotation suggesting a body composed of a luminous angelic substance, i.e., something wholly different from flesh. If this is what 1 Corinthians meant, it would indeed imply a rather different picture than that, e.g., of John 20:27, where Jesus, like LBJ, shows off livid scars. He focuses on the contrast between "psychical body" and "spiritual body," showing, quite properly, that the former ought to be taken as "natural body," not "physical body." Thus the contrast between "natural" and "spiritual" body would not in and of itself have to mean the latter is immaterial. True, I guess, but then what else would it mean? Craig sounds like an old-time rationalist when he appeals to the "natural"/"spiritual" opposition back in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, which seems to intend a moral comparison, to define the contrast in 1 Corinthians 15. He winds up with "spiritual body" meaning on the one hand "a body dominated, directed by the Holy Spirit," and on the other, tautologically equivalent to "a supernatural, i.e., a resurrected, body." But in either case, please, a physical body.

 

But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand like that which would understand Mark 13:30 to mean "Whichever generation is alive at the time these things happen will see these things happen."

 

From http://www.tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html

 

"Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'."

Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial, or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature. Mormons may find this useful for their own doctrine of spirit as a sort of substance. The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek terminology:

 

152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.

 

Sorry for the wall of text in the first one, I just didn't want context to be lost in the argument that particular author made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

It's undoubtedly just a story, a recycled myth, a story taken from earlier times:

 

Porphyry like Celsus before him also expressed disbelief in Jesus resurrection. He noted that the only people testifying to this resurrection were Christ's followers, who were considered "people of no account," they having a vested interest in claiming a resurrection while "the people of account," Christ's accusers and executioners, the Jews and Romans, make no statements about having seen personally this allegedly resurrected being:

 

"There is another way to refute the false opinion concerning the resurrection of [Jesus], which is spoken of everywhere these days. Why did this Jesus [after his crucifixion and rising- as your story goes] not appear to Pilate, who punished him saying he had done nothing worthy of execution, or to the king of the Jews, Herod, or to the High Priest of the Jewish people, or to many men at the same time, as for example to people of renown among the Romans, both Senators and others, whose testimony was reliable?

 

Instead he appeared to Mary Magdalene, a prostitute who came from some horrible little village and had been possessed by seven demons, and another Mary, equally unknown, probably a peasant woman, and others who were of no account...Had he shown himself to people _who could be believed_, then others would have believed through them -and [Christians] would not today be punished for fabricating these ridiculous tales."

 

http://www.bibleorigins.net/ChristsResurrectionAnomaliesNote.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is another way to refute the false opinion concerning the resurrection of [Jesus], which is spoken of everywhere these days. Why did this Jesus [after his crucifixion and rising- as your story goes] not appear to Pilate, who punished him saying he had done nothing worthy of execution, or to the king of the Jews, Herod, or to the High Priest of the Jewish people, or to many men at the same time, as for example to people of renown among the Romans, both Senators and others, whose testimony was reliable?

 

Instead he appeared to Mary Magdalene, a prostitute who came from some horrible little village and had been possessed by seven demons, and another Mary, equally unknown, probably a peasant woman, and others who were of no account...Had he shown himself to people _who could be believed_, then others would have believed through them -and [Christians] would not today be punished for fabricating these ridiculous tales."

 

I had an interesting mental image of Jesus, speaking to Pilate about his resurrection, then being arrested and crucified again.

 

Kind of like The Highlander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.