Sheshbazzar

Not very strange if the gospel "stories" were latter inventions.

schilling.klaus

the three "women" at the tomb are to be understood allegorically, not literally as cheaters like Holding do. Already Osiris had been mourned by 3 "women", of course truly goddesses, as are those falsely so-called women at Jesus' tomb,
of course they are exactly the same goddesses, as Jesus is just a synonym for Osiris.


Klaus Schilling

Amaleq13

I've already explained that. Perhaps you haven't read enough examples of the exact same pattern of "three times" repeated in myths and fables? It is a fairly common trope that tends to signal "literature" rather than "history" though, as I said, the story might ultimately be based on actual events.

Johnny Skeptic

You sure would if you were clever enough to know that many people would arrive at the very same conclusion that you arrived at.

Jane H

It’s getting a little busy to respond to everyone’s points (as is usual!), so apologies if I miss something you said.

SC- I’m struggling to read your points through the style; however I would be surprised if you were questioning my statement about C1 belief on resurrection, which is a pretty well trodden route. The issue of support for the apostles is quite an interesting one (see 1 Corinthians 9), but the early church support wouldn’t have been around in the very earliest days of the church, so a return to work would have been necessary. I’ll be a little more specific in my statement, “Further, you certainly would not, ever, make the first human witnesses to the resurrection to be women, if you were concocting a story in C1 Israel.”

Amaleq13- Three times because a) That’s myth form b) because that’s how God determined it would happen. Or both of them (gets my vote). Anyway, we’re on pretty solid historical ground saying a denial happened. (Doing serious history, anyway).

Jane H

JS- I didn’t say return from near death (Scheintod) was ‘common’ in the ancient world, I said it was known about. The plot of “Callirhoe” is based around it. It wasn’t common, expected or predictable. Grave robbing certainly did happen in the ancient world. Peter’s confusion (which was normal for him!) was on this occasion probably due to the ‘grave robbers’ leaving the clothes (and perhaps the resurrection penny just starting to drop…?)

Point 1- I’ve already explained in depth why no-one took Jesus predicted return seriously. The so-called Messiah was dead. This meant he had lied about himself. Remember, in C1 Jewish thought, much as in atheist thought, once you’re dead, you’re dead. A return from the dead wasn’t understood, let alone believed in.

Point 3- They remembered about the stone, the gospels are clear about that, but they set off that morning anyway, to do a job. It probably wasn’t the most sensible thing, but entirely it’s completely credible that a group of heavily grieving (and hence rather irrational) people should set off just to try and do what needed doing, even if it didn’t work out. Incidentally, I would suggest the reason disciples didn’t offer to help, is that were too busy hiding under tables crying for their mummies.

Jane H

Sheshb- No argument, the NT is a collection of “religiously motivated propaganda documents”. Historians work with this sort of material all the time. Even Nazi propaganda is historical evidence, of a distasteful sort. As I said, the gospels still constitute evidence to be read with the disciplines of historical analysis. If you read my earlier posts, you will notice that I make no claims about exact phraseology, authorship or inerrancy. I am content for them to be read as historical documents. Even within those parameters, they still present a puzzle that, after 200 years of post-Enlightenment challenge by the best scholarship, remain naggingly insistent.

Johnny Skeptic

I disagree. If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, people would have taken his claim that he would rise from the dead seriously. In addition, you said "Returns from the apparent dead happen normally these days. We’ve all seen the news stories, and I’m sure they happened then." If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, surely his followers believed that God was responsible for that, not him, and that since it had actually been God who raised Lazarus from the dead, he would also raise Jesus from the dead.

It is very unlikely that an entire group of women would forget that Jesus said that he would rise from the dead in spite of the fact that he had raised Lazarus from the dead, and that the same group, or part of the same group of women would ALSO going to the tomb early in the morning and expect to find someone to roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb are astronomical.

If a God exists, it all gets down to his intentions. If a God exists, and wanted to communicate with humans, all that he would need to do would be to telephatically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world, thereby discouraging dissent instead of needlessly inviting dissent.

Johnny Skeptic

You sure would if you were clever enough to know that many people would arrive at the very same conclusion that you arrived at.

Why did Jesus make public appearances after he rose from the dead?

Amaleq13

A common trope from such literature, yes. A rational thinker simply cannot ignore that fact.

That is just an abdication from serious thought. It says nothing and means nothing except one blindly accepts what the text says regardless.

Arguably more absurd than just allowing one's faith to force "b".

No, we are not. It is nothing more than a possibility. It is just as "possible" that the entire scene has no connection to reality except as a metaphor for the doubts of the author's audience.