Freethought & Rationalism Archive

2-J · 07-07-2010, 08:07 AM

But then why the empty tomb? Surely the body that had once been adopted should just have been still there.

dog-on · 07-07-2010, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

But then why the empty tomb? Surely the body that had once been adopted should just have been still there.

The tomb was not empty.

Quote:

they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side

bacht · 07-07-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

But then why the empty tomb? Surely the body that had once been adopted should just have been still there.

The tomb was not empty.

Quote:

they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side

I guess this figure is usually identified as an angel? Your idea about the unknown spirit of Jesus is interesting.

Fenris_Wulf · 07-07-2010, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

But then why the empty tomb? Surely the body that had once been adopted should just have been still there.

Not knowing the mind of Mark, I can only guess. Based on the aforementioned scenario, Mark is a story of hope and redemption for the Jewish people. The Nation possessed of the spirit of JHWH is not dead but rather, taken up into the bosom of the Lord. The Temple is no longer "here" but rather taken to a spiritual plane. There are several places that indicate Jesus as an analouge for the Temple to support this idea.

All through Jewish literature catastrophe was caused by the Jewish people ignoring or not following what JHWH wanted, so the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was just a "modern" version of the Babylonian captivity is reasonable.

dog-on · 07-07-2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The tomb was not empty.

I guess this figure is usually identified as an angel? Your idea about the unknown spirit of Jesus is interesting.

Mark calls the "angel" a young man. I suppose that if he meant an actual angel, he could have easily said so.

dog-on · 07-07-2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris_Wulf

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

But then why the empty tomb? Surely the body that had once been adopted should just have been still there.

Not knowing the mind of Mark, I can only guess. Based on the aforementioned scenario, Mark is a story of hope and redemption for the Jewish people. The Nation possessed of the spirit of JHWH is not dead but rather, taken up into the bosom of the Lord. The Temple is no longer "here" but rather taken to a spiritual plane. There are several places that indicate Jesus as an analouge for the Temple to support this idea.

All through Jewish literature catastrophe was caused by the Jewish people ignoring or not following what JHWH wanted, so the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was just a "modern" version of the Babylonian captivity is reasonable.

Nah, Mark is the answer to the question, "Daddy, why did God ditch the Jews?"...

TedM · 07-07-2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris_Wulf

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Does the claim of his rising change the idea that he was a vessel for the spirit only until his death? I'm not quite seeing how that fits in:

The only one of these which do not fit with an adoptionist fiction is the last one where it is said that Jesus was not there rather than the Christ was not there. The rest are part of a building of expectation and showing that the people did not understand even when they were told (in the scriptures) that he would rise. Even this is only slightly problematic due to the idea that Mark wanted the reader to know that he was risen.

Ok, I take it the adoptionist view is that Jesus' body 'adopts' the ever-existing Christ spirit at baptism and then releases it upon death -- back to the Christ? I agree with others though that the empty tomb is problematic for this view. And, also his telling them he will meet them in Galilee after his death.

Quote:

On another note, you made mention earlier that it would take a charismatic person for the disciples to have visions of a risen Jesus. This is manifestly incorrect. I talk to a lot of religionists and spiritualist types and many of them have "seen" the spirit of a loved one after their death. They describe the experience as being completely vivid and realistic and are convinced that they have been contacted from beyond the grave. So given a beloved teacher, the idea that one or more of his followers would have had such a vision which told them that his work was being continued is not unexpected. Once this story passes into the main body of followers, they are primed to have similar visions themselves.

wasn't me. I agree with you. Religious types sometimes have very active imaginations which I think makes them prone to visionary experiences. There is no need for Jesus to have been charismatic for others to have had 'visions'. It's an unnecessary requirement that others here seem to have. They can't even imagine how a relatively insignificant actual person could have inspired others to believe he had been raised from the dead. IMO the answer lies in others believing that he in fact had been significant in some way.

Fenris_Wulf · 07-07-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, I take it the adoptionist view is that Jesus' body 'adopts' the ever-existing Christ spirit at baptism and then releases it upon death -- back to the Christ? I agree with others though that the empty tomb is problematic for this view. And, also his telling them he will meet them in Galilee after his death.

I think the reason for the portrayal of the empty tomb may be along these lines;

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Not knowing the mind of Mark, I can only guess. Based on the aforementioned scenario, Mark is a story of hope and redemption for the Jewish people. The Nation possessed of the spirit of JHWH is not dead but rather, taken up into the bosom of the Lord. The Temple is no longer "here" but rather taken to a spiritual plane. There are several places that indicate Jesus as an analouge for the Temple to support this idea.

As for going into Gallilee before them, if we take Gallilee as an analogue of the wider diaspora, this makes sense as the temple is wherever the people are.

Could someone help me? Was Gallilee seen as a more Hellenised area of Israel and was it included in the ban on jews in Israel?

bacht · 07-07-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris_Wulf

I think the reason for the portrayal of the empty tomb may be along these lines;

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Not knowing the mind of Mark, I can only guess. Based on the aforementioned scenario, Mark is a story of hope and redemption for the Jewish people. The Nation possessed of the spirit of JHWH is not dead but rather, taken up into the bosom of the Lord. The Temple is no longer "here" but rather taken to a spiritual plane. There are several places that indicate Jesus as an analouge for the Temple to support this idea.

As for going into Gallilee before them, if we take Gallilee as an analogue of the wider diaspora, this makes sense as the temple is wherever the people are.

Could someone help me? Was Gallilee seen as a more Hellenised area of Israel and was it included in the ban on jews in Israel?

I like your allegorical view of Mark, I think Ted is working with a more conventional perspective.

As for Galilee, there were non-Jewish residents, but also Zealots before the first revolt. The Romans under Vespasian started their campaign there and moved south.

I think the ban on Jews was after the bar-Kochba war in the 130s, but others here know the historical details better than me.

spin · 07-07-2010, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I guess this figure is usually identified as an angel? Your idea about the unknown spirit of Jesus is interesting.

Mark calls the "angel" a young man. I suppose that if he meant an actual angel, he could have easily said so.

This young man in Greek is νεανισκος. The only other time this word is used in Mark is for the young man who dropped his linen cloth and ran away naked. In both cases for some reason the writer is interested in what the figure was wearing. Very evocative.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2010, 08:07 AM	#191
2-J Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: UK Posts: 179	But then why the empty tomb? Surely the body that had once been adopted should just have been still there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.