Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James Brown · 10-13-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jukia

Are there any extra Biblical contemporaneous references to this seemingly incredible event? The dead rising and walking around? Seems that someone else should have noticed this.

In a word, No.

Yet another item that Paul could have used in his epistles to prove his point ("See? The dead in Christ will rise!") and yet he never mentioned it. It's almost as if no one knew about it ....

Koyaanisqatsi · 10-13-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

In a word, No.

Yet another item that Paul could have used in his epistles to prove his point ("See? The dead in Christ will rise!") and yet he never mentioned it. It's almost as if no one knew about it ....

Probably because any Jew would know that it was metaphorical. It states that it is almost directly when it starts with the "bones are the whole house of Israel."

Which, again, is only further evidence that no Jew created the Jesus myth (aka, the "passion narrative'), which leaves only the Romans to have so grossly misinterpreted the OT mytholgoy.

Malachi151 · 10-13-2006, 08:25 AM

Well, and the Greeks and Egyptians....

James Brown · 10-13-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Probably because any Jew would know that it was metaphorical. It states that it is almost directly when it starts with the "bones are the whole house of Israel."

Which, again, is only further evidence that no Jew created the Jesus myth (aka, the "passion narrative'), which leaves only the Romans to have so grossly misinterpreted the OT mytholgoy.

Wait, are you saying the Ezekiel passage is metaphorical? Or the Matthew passage? Or both?

My point was, the Matthew raising of the saints was supposedly a recent historical event, occurring within Paul's lifetime, and would have dovetailed nicely with his teaching that death is temporary for those who believe in Jesus. And yet he didn't use the example (nor that of Lazarus, nor anyone else raised from the dead by Jesus).

According to the HJ theorists, the event really happened, Paul either knew about it and chose not to mention it, or Paul didn't know about it (and if so, why not?)

Another option for HJ is that this one particular event didn't really happen, but then that opens the can of worms, allowing us to ask what other astounding claims involving the resurrection didn't really happen.

For the MJ theorists, the event didn't really happen, and Paul didn't mention it because it didn't really happen.

Which do you think is more likely?

gstafleu · 10-13-2006, 11:06 AM

A couple of thoughts.

1) If this was based on OT, wouldn't we expect some remark about prophecies or scripture being fulfilled? The rising seems to stand on its own.

2) Assuming the origin of this is folklore, are there extra-OT instances of myth/folktales that resemble this?

3) As to only recently dead saints rising, doesn't that presuppose a rather high saint production? What would the saint output, in say saints/day, have been in those days?

Gerard Stafleu

Koyaanisqatsi · 10-13-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

JamesABrown: Wait, are you saying the Ezekiel passage is metaphorical?

Yes and that the Romans poorly interpreted it when they used it to create the Jesus mythology. But that's a whole different theory and I didn't mean to derail.

Quote:

MORE: According to the HJ theorists, the event really happened, Paul either knew about it and chose not to mention it, or Paul didn't know about it (and if so, why not?)

Well, that's the stupidity of it all, of course. There's no question Paul would mention it in detail if it happened during his lifetime, but there are so many ways around that argument that it's a non-starter, IMO, and it can work against the person presenting it, because all the HJist needs to say is that the event was well known already, so there was no need for Paul to be redundant, or the like.

Equally stupid, but then...consider the topic.

:huh:

Quote:

MORE: Another option for HJ is that this one particular event didn't really happen, but then that opens the can of worms, allowing us to ask what other astounding claims involving the resurrection didn't really happen.

Yes, well, beside the fact that none of it happened, they can't open any cans. Can't.

:huh:

Quote:

MORE: Which do you think is more likely?

"More likely?" I'll tell you exactly what happened, the entire thing was made up out of whole cloth in a Roman attempt to destabilize the religious stronghold on what should have been assimilated, conquered people by then; part and parcel to "winning the hearts and minds" just before the military genocide in 70 C.E.

But again, that's a different theory

.

Benni72 · 10-13-2006, 01:16 PM

I wonder what the word saint means in Matthew's context. In the New Testament, it usually seems to denote a follower of Jesus, but were any disciples dead by the time of the crucifixion of their teacher?

Malachi151 · 10-13-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Assuming the English is correctly translated, verses 52 and 53 states that as soon as Jesus "gave up the spirit" the bodies came to life. "They came out of the tombs" implies that only people buried in tombs in the first place were resurrected. No saints, presumably, were ever buried elsewhere. I'm not familiar with first-century Palestinian body disposal, but was every corpse buried in a tomb? I had thought that tombs were only for the wealthy. Or is tomb a generic term for gravesite?

Verse 53: "and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city...."

So they came alive the instant Jesus died, and they immediately came out of their tombs, but then...what? Did they just mill about for a day and a half until Jesus could be resurrected? What did they eat and drink during this period? Did anyone see them sitting on their tombstones waiting for Sunday morning?

This seems like a slipup on Matthew's part. It's one thing to have a bunch of amazing natural wonders occur the instant Jesus died (darkness, earthquake, torn veil, etc.) but he brought out the secondary characters too soon in this scene. It would have been unseemly for these ordinary, nameless saints to have resurrection appearances before Jesus, so he had to have them resurrect, then hang around in suspended animation for 36 hours, and then go into town. It would have been far better to have the saints resurrect at the same time that Jesus did, sort of a spill-over effect of whatever magic resurrected their Lord. Imagine all the sermons if Matthew had edited this properly: "When Jesus comes, everything around him comes to life!" Still, why have I never seen a single Passion Play include this bit?

Also, Matthew gives away the ending in verse 53. He's just set up the gruesome death of Jesus accompanied by groans of nature's lamenting, but before the body is even buried we're told he's going to be resurrected, so the reader can relax.

And what in the world happened when these moldy corpses walked back into town? Did they try to track down their families? Did they assert that their widows should leave their new husbands and renew their marriage vows? Did they ask for their old jobs back? Did they kick out the people who were living in their homes, using their former possessions, etc? Were these resurrected saints, and not Mary and the other women, actually the first people to tell others that Jesus was alive?

Of course, because "Matthew" added this bit in to the already existing story of Mark.

No one would have origionally written a story like that, but when "Matthew" was adding in, he didn't think about the fact that he was creating a spoiler because he already knew the story.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2006, 08:25 AM	#13
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Well, and the Greeks and Egyptians....

10-13-2006, 11:06 AM	#15
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	A couple of thoughts. 1) If this was based on OT, wouldn't we expect some remark about prophecies or scripture being fulfilled? The rising seems to stand on its own. 2) Assuming the origin of this is folklore, are there extra-OT instances of myth/folktales that resemble this? 3) As to only recently dead saints rising, doesn't that presuppose a rather high saint production? What would the saint output, in say saints/day, have been in those days? Gerard Stafleu

10-13-2006, 01:16 PM	#17
Benni72 Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Rostock, Germany Posts: 143	I wonder what the word saint means in Matthew's context. In the New Testament, it usually seems to denote a follower of Jesus, but were any disciples dead by the time of the crucifixion of their teacher?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.