mountainman

Because such claims were commonplace.
Such claims are recorded quite often:

Asclepius (The Healer) in Archaeology

"Asclepius was the son of Apollo [a god] and Coronis
[a mortal woman -- is the pattern sinking in here?]...
he healed many sick whose lives had been despaired of,
and... he brought back to life many who had died."
[Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, 4.7.1.1- 2]


"I found [in writing this history] some
who are reported to have been raised by him [Asclepius] ,
to wit, Capaneus and Lycurgus, as Stesichorus [645- 555 BC]
says... Hippolytus, as the author of the Naupactica
reports[6th century BC], Tyndareus, as Panyasis [c. 500 BC]
says; Hymnaneus, as the Orphics report; and Glaucus...as
Melasogoras [5th century BC] relates."
Apollodorus, The Library, 3.1.3- 3]

"When Hippolytus was killed,...Asclepius raised
him from the dead."
[Pausanias, Corinth, Description of Greece, 1.27.5]


"Alcetas of Halieis. The blind man saw a dream
[while sleeping in Asclepius' temple].
It seemed to him the god came up to him
and with his fingers opened his eyes....
At daybreak he walked out sound."
[Inscriptiones Graecae, 4.1.121 - 122, Stele 1.18]

" Hermon of Thasus. His blindness
was cured by Asclepius."
[Inscriptiones Graecae, 4.1.121 - 122, Stele 2.22]


To Valerius Aper, a blind soldier, the god revealed
that he should go and take the blood of a white cock
along with hone and compound and eye salve and
for three days should apply it to his eyes.
And he could see again and went and publicly
offered thanks to the god."
[Inscriptiones Graecae, 14.96 ]


"A voiceless boy. He came as a supplicant to the
Temple [of Asclepius]...the temple servant demanded
the boys father...to bring...the thank offering
for the cure. But the boy suddenly said, "I promise."
His father was startled at this and asked him to repeat it.
The boy repeated the words and after that became well."
[Inscriptiones Graecae 4.1.121- 122; Stele 1.5]


"Nicanor, a lame man. While he was sitting wide-awake
[in Asclepius' temple], a boy snatched his crutch from
him and ran away. but Nicanor got up, pursued him,
and do became well."
[Inscriptiones Graecae 4.1.121- 122; Stele 1.16]

Johnny Skeptic

But none of that proves that it was commonplace for people to forget that a man had told them that he would rise from the dead, a man who had already raised someone else from the dead. I said "How could anyone have fogotten a claim like that if Jesus had already raised Lazarus from the dead?" That is not the kind of claim that a person is likely to forget, much moreso not a group of women who conveniently just so happen to be in the same place at the same time.

aa5874

For some reason, the NT writers did imply that the disciples didn't really know Jesus was going to be crucified or resurrected.

John 20.9, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

Mark 9.31-32, "For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
But they understood not that saying and were afraid to ask him."

And even though gLuke gave a more graphic description, still, the twelve did not understand that Jesus woukd be crucified, and be raised from the dead.

Luke 18.31-34, "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them.......he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again."

And they understood none of these things and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken."

The act, his resurrection, to prove he was a God once and for all was not known by his disciples! Mind boggling!

mountainman

Hey Johnny,


We both I think understand that the New Testament
is a textual perversion (of some scale) of ancient texts
which was established as the foundation for a state
religion (read this as an imperial cult) under Constantine.

The royal art of holding christain ideas up for ridicule
seems to be extremely popular in these forums, but
seems to be entirely a misdirected use of energy.

The ultimate resolution to such quandary is to be
found not in this royal art of ridicule, but in the
arduous task of the objective review of the
ancient historical ground of the first four centuries,
and specifically the fourth, when the shit hit the fan.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

xaxxat

Can these Scriptures be harmonized?

Sure, if one doesn't take them literally...

skepticalbip

Considering that they are four "eyewitness" accounts from four different people who were not there, I would have to conclude that they were relating the same story that they had heard and each interpreted or remembered differently. Sorta like if you have four kids read Winnie the Phooh then, a week later, ask each to tell you what they had read.

Solitary Man

Funny, because when you ask kids those sorts of question, they never overlap to such detail that is found between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Odd, isn't it?

skepticalbip

Not particularly odd to me... Why do you find it odd that some people remember story lines better than others?

By the way, kids are damned good at remembering stories that they like - many can mouth the words along with you when you read it to them again. Or if you stop in the middle of a sentence, many can finish the sentence.

Solitary Man

Have you even looked at the Synoptic overlaps?

-Jay-

This is explained quite well by the hypothesis of Markan priority and the view that the authors of GMt and GLk used GMk as a source, with the later authors adding their own embellishments. It's not the synoptic overlaps that are interesting - it's the differences.

regards,

NinJay