Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 08-21-2012, 05:44 PM

If a resurrection had happened, and the alleged-Jesus-messiah had been present for a period afterwards, one could expect there would have been far greater documentation of such as event and "His" doings afterwards.

As it is, there is none outside a few scant biblical references:

In the Gospel of Mark 16:14, after the resurrection, Jesus "was 'manifested' unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat" [and then 'He' upbraided them for not believing they had seen him]

Luke 24 makes mention.

Acts 1:3 simply states that Jesus:
"showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God" ...

... the many proofs - over 40 days! - are not substantiated.

It is interesting that in John 6:62 Jesus asks the Jews: "What if then you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?"

There is a reliance on a hypothesized non-canonical gospel of the Hebrews - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

aeebee50 · 08-21-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Mark 16:2-7

Quote:

2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “ Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘ He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

If that isn't a resurrection, what is?

It is time to stop claiming that the shorter version of GMark doesn't support a resurrection, or that it is about the disciples never believing Jesus had been resurrected. Both claims are pure NONSENSE.

I am with you. He was resurrected and it is historical.

MrMacSon · 08-21-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

I am with you. He was resurrected and it is historical.

The assertion 'He' was resurrected is unsubstantiated beyond the bible stories - stories that are likely to be myth-fiction.

Minimalist · 08-21-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

There is no resurrection story. It goes from a crucifixion to burial and skipping a resurrection story right to an empty tomb with someone claiming that jesus has risen.

Technically that's true of all of them. Only in the gospel of Peter with its super-sized jesus and walking-talking cross was there an actual, walk-out-of-the-tomb resurrection story..... and that one was too stupid even for early xtians apparently.

dockeen · 08-21-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

There is no resurrection story. It goes from a crucifixion to burial and skipping a resurrection story right to an empty tomb with someone claiming that jesus has risen.

Technically that's true of all of them. Only in the gospel of Peter with its super-sized jesus and walking-talking cross was there an actual, walk-out-of-the-tomb resurrection story..... and that one was too stupid even for early xtians apparently.

But....but....but...the story has a talking cross!!!!!!!!

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-21-2012, 08:08 PM

I think that Mark (and Paul too, for that matter) did not conceive the Resurrection as an interval of physical resuscitation prior to an ascension. I think the Resurrection was originally just believed to be an exultation - the ascension straight to Heaven was the Resurrection. Neither Mark or Paul has a secondary ascension. I believe this is because the resurrection and the ascension were originally the same thing, and that the interlude of physical resuscitation prior to a final ascension was a later accretion, probably developed to counter docetic views.

MrMacSon · 08-21-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

There is no resurrection story. It goes from a crucifixion to burial and skipping a resurrection story right to an empty tomb with someone claiming that jesus has risen.

Technically that's true of all of them. Only in the gospel of Peter with its super-sized jesus and walking-talking cross was there an actual, walk-out-of-the-tomb resurrection story..... and that one was too stupid even for early xtians apparently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think that Mark (and Paul too, for that matter) did not conceive the Resurrection as an interval of physical resuscitation prior to an ascension. I think the Resurrection was originally just believed to be an exultation - the ascension straight to Heaven was the Resurrection. Neither Mark or Paul has a secondary ascension. I believe this is because the resurrection and the ascension were originally the same thing, and that the interlude of physical resuscitation prior to a final ascension was a later accretion, probably developed to counter docetic views.

The various stories, and various versions of various stories, is evidence for evolving or competing myth-fiction, or both.

outhouse · 08-21-2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think that Mark (and Paul too, for that matter) did not conceive the Resurrection as an interval of physical resuscitation prior to an ascension. I think the Resurrection was originally just believed to be an exultation - the ascension straight to Heaven was the Resurrection. Neither Mark or Paul has a secondary ascension. I believe this is because the resurrection and the ascension were originally the same thing, and that the interlude of physical resuscitation prior to a final ascension was a later accretion, probably developed to counter docetic views.

which brings up the good point

did they believe in a spiritual resurrection, or physical, and was one later redacted in to meet a new scribes view

MrMacSon · 08-21-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

did they believe in a spiritual resurrection, or physical, and was one later redacted in to meet a new scribes view

there has been plenty of commentary in the last ~100 yrs or so that the stories evolve from an initially spiritual character to which more flesh was added.

aa5874 · 08-21-2012, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think that Mark (and Paul too, for that matter) did not conceive the Resurrection as an interval of physical resuscitation prior to an ascension. I think the Resurrection was originally just believed to be an exultation - the ascension straight to Heaven was the Resurrection. Neither Mark or Paul has a secondary ascension. I believe this is because the resurrection and the ascension were originally the same thing, and that the interlude of physical resuscitation prior to a final ascension was a later accretion, probably developed to counter docetic views.

Please, Diogenes the Cynic, you are the same person who claims the Gospels are Bullshit Reenactnents yet all of a sudden you seem to be reversing yourself and now is making unsubstantianted claims about the Beliefs of early Christians.

You have NOT one piece of evidence to support the Bulsshit Reenactments.

You have NOT presented any shred of evidence to show when any Jesus story or Pauline wtitings were composed.

NOTHING at all can support any Jesus cult before the 2nd century.

There is NO indication or evidence to show that the author of gMark wrote history or was a Christian or that the author wrote gMark for Christians.

Now, it is UTTERLY erroneous that the Pauline writer did NOT claim that Jesus physically resurrected when he Specifically stated that he would be a false WITNESS if Jesus was NOT resurrected.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

We cannot continue day after day to have people simply post KNOWN errors. We won't get any where on BC&H.

We must show that we can operate rationally.

Now, again, if Jesus was actually a human being then he could NOT have resurrected ONCE he was already DEAD.

Let us reason together. Is it NOT true???

Next, if Jesus did NOT exist then he could NOT have resurrected!!! Is it NOT true???

The Resurrection of Jesus is TOTAL Fiction.--Is it NOT Fiction???

Please, the NT Canon are Bullshit Reenactments exactly as stated by Diogenes the Cynic--they are Myth Fables--Nothing has survived to show that the Bullshit Reenactments were known in the 1st century.

The Resurrection story makes NO sense as history--it was the Resurrected Jesus that Commissioned the Disciples to preach the Jesus story--What Bullshit Reenactments!!!!

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

08-21-2012, 05:44 PM	#11
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	If a resurrection had happened, and the alleged-Jesus-messiah had been present for a period afterwards, one could expect there would have been far greater documentation of such as event and "His" doings afterwards. As it is, there is none outside a few scant biblical references: In the Gospel of Mark 16:14, after the resurrection, Jesus "was 'manifested' unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat" [and then 'He' upbraided them for not believing they had seen him] Luke 24 makes mention. Acts 1:3 simply states that Jesus: "showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God" ... ... the many proofs - over 40 days! - are not substantiated. It is interesting that in John 6:62 Jesus asks the Jews: "What if then you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?" There is a reliance on a hypothesized non-canonical gospel of the Hebrews - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

08-21-2012, 08:08 PM	#16
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I think that Mark (and Paul too, for that matter) did not conceive the Resurrection as an interval of physical resuscitation prior to an ascension. I think the Resurrection was originally just believed to be an exultation - the ascension straight to Heaven was the Resurrection. Neither Mark or Paul has a secondary ascension. I believe this is because the resurrection and the ascension were originally the same thing, and that the interlude of physical resuscitation prior to a final ascension was a later accretion, probably developed to counter docetic views.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.