Scotsguy44

I simply don't find the above line of reasoning credible. To postulate that Jesus would resurrect Lazarus into a worse condition than when he was alive is on the face of it preposterous and would certainly not have been a cause for celebration but for condemnation of Jesus.

Your appeal to science has no weight when a supernatural resurrection is in play because science has no control or involvement in such. How a body and brain would be in its natural state after death says nothing about how that body and brain would be in a supernaturally resurrected from the dead state. It is quite simply comparing apples with oranges.

What excludes the resurrection body of Jesus being that of the same person yet having different composition? It would be like saying that if the human Mary Jones died and then at a seance appeared and spoke to her husband in a spirit form that it wasn't the same person Mary Jones. Such is simply non sequitur reasoning. The form does not need to be exactly the same in order for it to be the same person. If you think it does follow then please explain why?

This is tangential remarks to the thread topic.

Thanks
Matt

Sheshbazzar

No one either celebrated or condemned, because, the -story- is Absolutely Fictional. No Jeebus ever resserected any Lazaraus in any condition.
And nobody ever saw any such thing.
There is a lot of flakey crap in these moldy old resurrection stories.
And you are dodging the pertinent questions as to what kind of 'lives' these supposedly resurrected dead saints would have had if such a thing had ever actually taken place.
The reaction and publicity that would have been generated by 'many' dead saints actually having came out of their graves and traipsing around Jerusalem would have created one of the greatest public uproars ever heard, instead of only two verses appearing in a very un-credible and uncorroborated religious text.

What -do- you think became of all of these resurrected dead saints?
Better give that a lot of thought before you reply.

Hey Matt. I ain't the one that had your favorite old Zombie come back to life as a living cadaver chock-full of holes.
As far as his 'composition' I suggest it began as horse-shit, ended as horse-shit, and still is composed of nothing but horse-shit.
(I live in Kentucy, and am well aquainted with all different kinds of horse-shit.)
If a dead Mary Jones appeared at a senance, it certainly wouldn't be the same poor old Mary Jones that had died, but rather only another one of those cheap horse-shit parlor tricks always and invarably being pulled by fucking frauds and retards.

I don't believe it is at all tangental to a thread topic titled "Jesus Died For Our Sins--Absolute Fiction"

If Jeebus stayed dead, there is no question then of the stories being Absolute Fiction.

If Jeebus arose from the dead in the body of a cadaver full of holes there is also no question of the story being Absolute Fiction.

Having 'many' other dead saints also crawling out of their graves does absolutely nothing to increase the credibility of the NTs claims.
But only confirms that these stories are Absolute Fiction.

aa5874

I will now postulate that Jesus was NOT a man as stated in Galatians 1.1.

Galatians 1.1 If Paul was NOT the apostle of a human being then PAUL either LIED or wrote fiction when he stated Jesus was raised from the dead.

Paul could NOT show that a non-human character died and was raised from the dead.

The claim by Paul that Jesus died for our sins is absolute Fiction because it is FALSE whether or NOT Jesus did exist in the Pauline writings.

Scotsguy44

[Granting arguendo your assumption of fiction it does not change for a second that there is no textual warranty or logically compelling reasons to postulate that Jesus resurrected Lazarus to a worse condition than when he was alive or that the resurrected Lazarus was any different as a (fictional) resurrected person than he was when (fictionally) naturally alive.

To reason such one has to actually ignore the very thing one is assuming - that it is fiction - and to try to fallaciously insert a naturalstic, scientific reading into a text which is quite obviously speaking about supernatural, non-scientific (fictional) events.

There is NO textual reason to think that the kind of lives that Lazarus and Jairus' daughter would have had in their resurrected state was any different from that of their previous lives.

It is not credible to postulate a literal resurrection of the dead of many saints who went into Jerusalem and were seen of many. The argument from silence against that is, in my opinion, valid hence I do not hold to a literal resurrection of them.

You really ought to try to learn to think and discuss a subject outside of the box of your own worldview which is, in itself, not established.

Just put before my above statement the following: 'In a hypothetical where God exists and miracles are possible......'

It is tangential in respect of it is but a voicing of your opinion on what is and is not the case. It put forward no arguments or points relevant to the subject.

Thanks
Matt

Chili

. . . nor did Paul who was the New CloaK [of faith] that Peter put on when he dove heard-first in the celestial waters on that sacred first post-resurrection fishing trip in John . . . and a catch like that needs some organization to put to work as earth was crammed with hell in those days.

. . . or do we think that water was cold then maybe?

Sheshbazzar

The text is not ambiguous;
You claim it is not credible 'to postulate a literal resurrection of the dead of many saints who went into Jerusalem and were seen of many.'
There it is, right there in black and white, just as much as;
how credible do you find this?
Yes. I understand that within the context of these fictional tales, it is to be accepted as an unwritten unspoken assumption that these formerly dead folks just went merrily on their way as though nothing out of the ordinary had ever happened, and they were simply the same common folk they had been in their previous lives.
And everyone else of the Jews and Romans accepted these resurrected saints on that basis and didn't think that all these formerly dead folks now walking around among them were even remarkable enough to bother mentioning until it until decades latter, and then exclusively within the writings of a small splinter sect?
Most readers are able to appreciate that I am engaging in irony here, and lampooning what would have been the actual social results of such preposterous stories having ever transpired in real life. Sorry if that escapes your comprehension.

Scotsguy44

When evaluating a text the kind of literary genre being used by the author is relevant as to how it is read, e.g. history, poetry, allegory, metaphor etc. Give the valid argument from silence against the raising of many saints to Jerusalem account the options seem to me to be:

a) One accepts it as historical on blind faith (belief, in the absence of, or contrary to the evidence.
b) One views it as not intended literally but as for example apocalyptic metaphor language.
c) One discards it as but spurious to the text or an invention by the author.

It does not logically and necessarily follow from doing either b) or c) that one must do the same with other stories of resurrection where that valid argument from silence is not present. A consideration - yes, but logically follows - no.

I see the irony you are engaging upon but just don't see why it is being done as it except for your own amusement. It certainly doesn't add anything to a serious discussion on the subjects.

Thanks
Matt

Sheshbazzar

True, you don't see. There are a whole -lot- of things in this world that you don't see, things that you would -rather not- see, things that you -will not- see. And things that you are not permitted to see.

What I write in these forums, is not as it were, written for the pleasings of or the understandings of your eyes alone. Of shoes, ships, sealing-wax, of tombstones and of horse-manure, and many other such mysteries beyond your ken.
I labored yet again this rainy day in a cemetery amongst the shallow graves of the unnamed and long forgotten dead.
This midnight and beyond, yes, it will see me there again.

There are those here, whose minds have been prepared by word and by experience, are alert and with hearts attuned, whom with dark sayings of old and elliptical speech, I am set to commune.
They, only to they to whom it is given, -will see-, and they -will- understand.

And thus you see, if you cannot see, and you cannot understand that strangeness of my words, views or word-pictures, it has not been given for you to see or to understand. for whomsoever it is given, they shall know.

But do not let any of this foolishness trouble you overmuch. There are many things you are destined never to see, and never to understand. live with it.

Montgomery Scott

From my basic understanding from Sunday School.

Jesus dies on the cross. He's dead. He is taken down from the cross and is moved to a tomb for burial. Three days later, Jesus wakes up and is alive again.

Points:

1.) Where was Jesus those three days? Some say hell, some say sleeping, some say that he went to Heaven and then came back.

Same with Lazarus, who Jesus returned from the dead. Where was he between his death and his resurrection? Hell? Why would God punish Lazarus just to return him? Heaven, wouldn't Lazarus be mad to have to return to dirty, hot 1st Century Palestine after being in Paradise? Asleep? Jesus told another story about a rich man and a beggar, with the rich man ending up after death in hell begging for Abraham to allow the beggar to cool the tip of his tounge with a drop of water.

It could be that the damned go straight to hell while the saved soul sleep for a long period of time, one day the horns will sound and their spirits will come out of the graves straight to Heaven. Of course, God is Omnimax and does what He does.

* If Jesus is/was God, then Jesus knew where He was going to go at death, because Jesus, being God created the story in the first place, which makes Him the lead performer, writer, producer and director of His own show. The Bible basically says that there is this life and an afterlife. I think of it kind of as a parallel universe of sorts.

I can see 500 people seeing Jesus walking around and being shocked at what they have seen. "Tell everyone about me, even if they want to kill you or serve you in a stew! Goodbye!"

*If Jesus died for the sins of the World, He still should be in hell, with humans asking God the Father for forgiveness and salvation. That would be God's sacrifice for Humanity. Yes, being tortured in hell for three days would suck, but again, if God is Omnimax, He knew he was going to do those three days. What's three days out of eternity?

*Why would Satan tempt Jesus if Jesus was God. Most Christian denominations will say that Jesus is/was God and if He was, then Jesus created Satan. So all that Satan could do is try to get God/Jesus to change His mind.

The Bible makes no sense.

aa5874

Well, please read the earliest gMark, Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, because what you were told in Sunday School may NOT match the story.

In gMark, when the women visitors went to the tomb the body of Jesus was already MISSING. In gMark there is ZERO witnesses to any resurrection.

The women are WITNESSES of an EMPTY TOMB in the earliest Jesus stories in gMark and told NO-ONE that Jesus was raised from the dead.

This is the VERY LAST verse in gMark.

Mark 16.8 The post-resurrection story was a LATER invention.