J-D

I didn't say that the Iliad is not totally fictive. It might be totally fictive. Then again, it might not be. I said that I didn't know. (ILLiad, on the other hand, is not fictive at all: it's inter-library loan software.) And on reflection I must now revise my opinion and say the same about Hamlet as about the Iliad. In both cases there is implicit reference to pre-historical periods about which we have only limited evidence and fragmentary knowledge, so in neither case is there any way to rule out the possibility that the texts draw some elements from an earlier tradition which are historically accurate. I don't say that it is so, only that there's no justification for concluding definitively that it is not. We can say that even if Shakespeare's character of Claudius ultimately derives from a real historical figure, then that person's real name was not Claudius, because the name of the character in Shakespeare's immediate source, Saxo Grammaticus, was not Claudius. But I don't see any way to decide whether he was real (under another name) or not.

On the other hand, the story of Tarzan is set in a period about which there are extensive records, and Burroughs did not draw on earlier sources for his story in the way that we know Shakespeare did (although obviously all written texts are affected in some way by earlier influences) but rather made up the story himself.

J-D

I take it you are incredulous of the suggestion that somebody might survive crucifixion. You shouldn't be. Josephus records such a case, where he got permission to have somebody taken down from the cross before dying. Maybe you doubt the possibility of the Romans failing to notice that a crucifixion victim was still alive, but again you shouldn't. The mistaken taking of people for dead is also an authenticated phenomenon.

Solo

I am incredulous of the notion that the story of resurrection originated in the physical survival of crucifixion by Jesus. As Richard Carrier ably argued the resurrection as conceived by Paul was a transformation into a spiritual body and it is that form of resurrection that was evidently written up allegorically by Mark. There are also indications in the more Jewish NT documents that in the Palestinian traditions of Jesus, the "rising from dead" was a ritual revival in which one was made to live through some sort of initiation, likely a mock three-day burial baptism. Note, e.g. that the book of Revelation operates with the notion of "second death" which it says will not hurt those who "conquer", i.e. survive spiritually the baptismal ordeal. And Hebrews says:

Jiri

J-D

I don't see why. It may not be the likeliest explanation, but it's not impossible.Even if, for the sake of argument, that is the way they told the story, that is not conclusive proof of the story's origin.That sounds like another possible explanation, but I don't see how it's the only possible explanation.

badger3k

If I remember correctly, this was pretty much a fluke - he got a reprieve in time, and didn't the guy die soon afterwards? There's also a big difference between someone dying of suffocation and someone having a seizure (or a coma) and being mistaken for dead. While mistakes happen, most that I am aware of seem to be fiction or of dubious venue - not saying they didn't happen, just saying that I am doubtful we have all the information. There may be more recent examples in the medical literature, but since these instances happened before modern techniques and equipment, I'd guess that the number has dropped off.

J-D

Josephus recounts that he recognised three people he knew on crosses and got permission to have them taken down (he doesn't say how long they'd been here, or give any other details about their crucifixion). He continues to say that two of them died under the physician's care but one recovered.

This doesn't show that surviving crucifixion was a likely event, but it suggests that it's possible.Well, two thousand years ago definitely qualifies as before modern techniques and experiment.

Robert Graves records that he was picked up from the field at the Battle of the Somme after being hit by shell fragments and was taken to be dead for long enough for his death to be reported to his parents and announced in the Times. Again, this says nothing about the likelihood of such errors but illustrates the possibility.

aa5874

But, you claimed Jesus did not resurrect. What really are you talking about?

Now, the text exists because someone wrote it.

What other explanations do you have?

What are you [i]RE-CONSTRUCTING?

Your imagination.

Your imagination is NOT an historiographical process when based entirely on speculation.

Your imagine is irrelevant, unless you have some evidence or corroborative source.

The Gospels is about a God/man, the creator and offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who was dead for days and resurrected to save mankind from their sins. That is their story, like any other mythological fable.

Can you imagine the Achilles fable without the fatal arrow to his heel?
Can you imagine a Jesus story without the resurrection?

J-D

If somebody asks you 'Why does it say this in this book?', and you answer 'What it says is not true', then you have not answered the question you were asked. As I understood it, the question originally under discussion was 'Why does it say in the Gospels that Jesus was resurrected?'Obviously what you say is true, but it's not a very satisfying answer. We know somebody wrote it; what would be interesting to know is why they wrote what they wrote.I am not reconstructing anything, but I know that other people have attempted to reconstruct the historical events which produced the text.Yes, easily. And so can other people, who have written on the subject.

Of course a story without the resurrection is not identical with the Gospel stories, but then the Gospel stories aren't identical with each other.

aa5874

But you said the resurrection was not true, you have not answered the question.

Please read the NT and the Church writings for the reason or reasons why it was claimed Jesus resurrected.

According to a Pauline writer, Jesus was raised from the dead to save mankind from their sins.

Co 15:17 - Also a Pauline writer claimed Jesus was called the Son of God through the resurrection from the dead.

Romans 1.3-4

Another reason why the Bible claimed Jesus resurrected was to show that he was really some kind of God or that he would be "perfected".

Luke 13:31-32 - There may be more reasons why Jesus was raised from the dead in the Bible and the Church writings.

The resurrections are not all identical? What is an identical resurrection?

J-D

I know I haven't. I said that I don't know the answer. I don't see that anybody does. I can see possible answers, but I don't know which (if any) of them is right.Those writings offer answers to the question 'Why was Jesus resurrected?' (which doesn't actually require an answer, since it presupposes the falsehood that Jesus was resurrected) but their only answer to the (different) question 'Why is it written that Jesus was resurrected?' is 'As an accurate record of a historical event', which is false. What we have in the canonical writings are two claims: that Jesus was resurrected; and that the resurrection of Jesus was necessary for human redemption. Both claims are false, and I don't know why either of them is made, and I don't see that anybody else does either.There are no resurrections. It is the stories in the Gospels which are not identical. John 20:17 contradicts Luke 24:39. John 20:9 contradicts Mark 10:34 and Luke 18:33. Mark 16:8 contradicts Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:9.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/contra_list.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/contra_list.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/contra_list.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/contra_list.html