Solo

We've been through this here many times: There are a number of references in the NT to resurrection and the reality of death. One needs to be able to sift through them and separate them to strands of different beliefs associated with the coming of the God's kingdom and Jesus' parousia in order to get anything that might remotely point to the origin (or origins) of the beliefs. I quoted you Rev 2:11, on the "second death". There is also Rev 20:6 which blesses those who had taken part in the "first resurrection". The Q saying of Jesus, "let the dead bury their dead" affirms that for the early groups some dead were more dead than others. There is also contunuity in the Judaic apocalyptic beliefs. Revelation mentions "Abaddon", the bottomless pit of hell, known at Qumran where the hymns went,

1) My spirit is imprisoned with the dead, my life has
reached the Pit, my soul languishes within me day
and night without rest (1QH VIII)
and
2) I thank Thee, O Lord, for Thou hast redeemed
my soul from the Pit, from the hell of Abaddon.
(1QH I)


In brief, I assume that a thoughtful researcher would take notice of themes like these and the NT resurrectional dissimilarities, and factor them in when making guesses about what went into beliefs of Jesus discussing his death certificate.

I never claimed that, besides I don't think you grasp what I am saying here. What came to us as "resurrection" in the NT is a complex composite belief which embodies a number of ideas, traditions and practices from both within and without Judaism. It is naive in the extreme to believe that this conceptual manifold originates in some mistaken post-mortem of Jesus or a theft of his body by his followers.

Jiri

J-D

I accept that the story as we have it in surviving texts is a complex construct deriving from multiple sources. I still don't see how you can definitively exclude the possibility that one of those sources is the historical fact of a man surviving crucifixion. I don't say that has to be what happened, but I don't see any reason not to be open to the possibility. Obviously even if it did happen, it wouldn't by itself be a complete explanation for the text. If there were nothing behind the texts except a man who actually survived crucifixion, then that would be what the texts record, and it isn't, so if there actually were such an incident behind the texts then the texts represent a complex distortion of the original historical fact, and that distortion would still require explanation, probably along the general lines you indicate. In fact, it's obvious that the texts must have that sort of complex history in any case, not least because of the divergence between them.

aa5874

So, who decides the right answer, the same person who have actually claimed that he doesn't know the answer.

This is just illogical.

J-D does not know so he assumes no-one else does.


You have already claimed you don't know the answer. You don't know what answer can possibly be right.


You don't know what you are saying. This is just total confusion.


The answers are in the NT. Why do you reject the answers and then claim you don't know?

In the Jesus stories, the God/man resurrected and the reasons for the resurrection are given in the Bible.

You mean that it is not recorded that anyone saw Jesus the God/man when he supposedly came back to life in the tomb.

Again claiming that there was no resurrection does not answer the question why the authors of the Jesus stories wrote that Jesus resurrected.

The authors ALREADY wrote the answers. JESUS RESURRECTED to save mankind from sin, and to be declared to be the Son of God.

Why did Achilles die after he was shot in the heel with an arrow?

Homer will give you the answer.

Why did Jesus resurrect?

The Pauline writers, and the authors of the Jesus stories will give you the answers.

J-D

I know that other people think they know the answer, but I haven't seen any of them give sufficient grounds to support their conclusions.That doesn't follow. I can distinguish possibly correct answers from definitely incorrect answers without knowing which is definitely the correct answer.I know what I'm saying. Possibly you don't know what I'm saying. That woudn't surprise me. If you could say a little more about your specific uncertainty, I might be able to make myself clearer.Because I don't assume that something is true just because it's in the Bible. I know for a fact that many things in the Bible are definitely untrue.Possibly I can make the issue clearer with an analogy.

In Arthur Conan Doyle's story 'The Final Problem', he describes the death of Sherlock Holmes, plunging into the Reichenbach Falls locked in hand-to-hand combat with his arch-enemy Professor Moriarty.

The correct answer to the question 'Why did Sherlock Holmes die?' within the story is 'Because he fell into the Reichenbach Falls in a hand-to-hand combat with Professor Moriarty'.

But the correct answer to the question 'Why did the author write a story in which Sherlock Holmes died?', as a matter of verifiable historical record, is 'Because Arthur Conan Doyle was tired of writing Sherlock Holmes stories and wrote one in which Holmes died to avoid pressure to write more of them'.

These are two different questions, each with a clear meaning, but different meanings, and they have different answers, each verifiable within its own frame of reference.

Similarly, the answer to the question 'Why was Jesus resurrected?' within the story is 'By divine power, in order to fulfil the divine plan for the redemption of humanity'. But that is not the answer to the question 'Why did the authors write stories in which Jesus was resurrected?' We don't even know whether the authors believed that the stories they wrote were true, and even if we did know that it still wouldn't answer the question, because we still wouldn't know why they believed it was true.

J-D

Either the people who wrote down the stories about Jesus dying and then coming back to life truly believed that it happened or they did not.

If they did truly believe it, what made them believe it? If they believed that the resurrection was necessary for the redemption of humanity, what made them believe that? If somebody else told them so, what made the people who told them believe?

If they did not truly believe the story, why did they write it down?

dog-on

People write things for many reasons, the same holds true when it comes to beliefs.

How do you know that Mark wasn't simply writing a story.

J-D

Exactly my point.I don't know that 'Mark' wasn't. I don't know that he was, either. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other.

dog-on

You don't see the derivations from the LXX and Josephus as evidence for the nature of Mark's story?

Solo

I am not rejecting this absolutely; I am not saying it is impossible. I am just assigning it very low probability.
Here, btw, is the matrix of the resurrectional views which IMO were played out at the time:



Jiri

aa5874

But, this is so very basic and logical. Only those who know the answer can tell what is wrong, not those who don't know.

If you do not know that 2 plus 2 is 4 then even the right answer will appear wrong to you.

You don/t know why it was written that Jesus was resurrected even though the authors of the Jesus stories clearly stated the reasons.


What are the possible answers for 2+2?? Are you claiming that your possible answers must be right?

If you don't know what you doing, then you will probably make a lot of mistakes. What you think are possible answers may not even be possible at all, considering that you really don't even know if there was a Jesus Christ of the 1st century.

I did expect you to say that . But, when what you say is analyzed, the reciprocal emerges.

Examine your own statement. I don't know the answer but I know the possible correct answers.

A very cute way of saying," I don't know what I am saying."

Again, claiming that the resurrection is not true or that the Bible contains fiction does NOT answer the question.

The answers for the resurrection can only be derived from the authors of the Jesus stories, unless you can find other authors or those who wrote about Jesus.

The Pauline writers wrote that Jesus resurrected and they gave their answers or reasons. The authors of the Gospels gave other answers.

Your analogy simply cannot work.

You are now claiming that you KNOW the correct answer or reason for the death of Sherlock Holmes.

BUT, You have confessed that you DON'T know the answer or reason for the resurrection story.

Now, Please tell us who wrote about the activities of Achilles and the reason for those actions?
You or Homer?

Who wrote about the resurrection and the reasons for the resurrection?

YOU or the authors of the Jesus stories?

The answer for the resurrection is in the Bible.

So, how in the world can you claim to know the answers that are possibly correct when you don't know anything about the authors, and even Jesus?

Because you don't know what you are saying.