resurrection and theological significance

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9982
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

resurrection and theological significance

Post by Metacrock » Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:03 am

this is no mere apologetical romp through arguments for the resurrection: my take on Moltmann's thing of resurrection historical or history making?

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blog ... al-or.html
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Michael Hill
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by Michael Hill » Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:22 am

What really bothers me about the resurrection is this. Ignoring the fact that the gospels were written several decades later by people who clearly were not eye witnesses, why was the resurrection kept secret?

Despite hearing his sermons and seeing his miracles, the disciples never expected Jesus to rise again so were not at the tomb when Jesus rose. Mary when she saw him, according to one account, did not recognise him because she thought he was dead so it could not be him.

But further. Jesus rises from the dead and visits his disciples and tells them to keep it a secret. WHY?

You would have thought that Jesus would have gone to the Jewish elders and they knowing he died and here he was alive again, would admit that he was the son of god and as the word spread, Jews everywhere would convert to christianity.

Then on to see Pilate who also knew he died and here he is alive again. Pilate calls in other Romans and his bosses and they check and they see it was a true miracle and that he is the son of god, so christianity spreads throughout the Roman Empire 300 years early.

But none of this happened. We just have the word of the disciples, hearsay at that, that Jesus rose again. We have the known forgery of Mark 16:9-20, the nonsense in 1Corinthians 15:6 about 500 people seeing him (evidence?) and such.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9982
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by Metacrock » Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:41 pm

Michael Hill wrote:What really bothers me about the resurrection is this. Ignoring the fact that the gospels were written several decades later by people who clearly were not eye witnesses, why was the resurrection kept secret?
1. not decades, 18 years. That is the first writing the pre mark passion narrative.

2. The whole community was the author. the Gospels not produced by the namesakes but by whole communities and each was full of witnesses.

Despite hearing his sermons and seeing his miracles, the disciples never expected Jesus to rise again so were not at the tomb when Jesus rose. Mary when she saw him, according to one account, did not recognise him because she thought he was dead so it could not be him.
Messiah's personal resurrection was not an expectation for first century Judaism. they expected him to raise all of fallen Israel but not himself. it's only hinted at. Even so the Talmud identifies the passages that hint (Ps22) as Messianic.

But further. Jesus rises from the dead and visits his disciples and tells them to keep it a secret. WHY?
good question. he also tells them to tell everyone a matter of timing perhaps? why timing was important I don't know
You would have thought that Jesus would have gone to the Jewish elders and they knowing he died and here he was alive again, would admit that he was the son of god and as the word spread, Jews everywhere would convert to Christianity.
that almost is what happene3d. Packer Tenny and Whit4e show 80% of Jerusalem, was Christian by the fall of the temple. I've read literature from 2nd to 6th century talking about how Jews felt everyone was a Christian now.

Then on to see Pilate who also knew he died and here he is alive again. Pilate calls in other Romans and his bosses and they check and they see it was a true miracle and that he is the son of god, so Christianity spreads throughout the Roman Empire 300 years early.
why doesn't God just hold a press conference? we have to seek and find it in our hearts to internalize the values of the good.

But none of this happened. We just have the word of the disciples, hearsay at that, that Jesus rose again. We have the known forgery of Mark 16:9-20, the nonsense in 1Corinthians 15:6 about 500 people seeing him (evidence?) and such.
That was the symbolism of washing his hands of Jesus' death. Symbolically he's removing himself from any kind of redemption because he wontadmdit guilt.
most of the first Christians signed on because they saw wealk through the streets of Bethany. Pilate alreadu rekected God.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:36 pm

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus told anyone to keep the Resurrection a secret. After some of his healings, yes-- presumably (based on the context) because the resulting crowds would make it almost impossible for him to move around for days afterwards.

But after the Resurrection, the message is, "Go and tell," and "as the Father sent me, so I am sending you."
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9982
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by Metacrock » Thu Nov 26, 2015 3:59 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus told anyone to keep the Resurrection a secret. After some of his healings, yes-- presumably (based on the context) because the resulting crowds would make it almost impossible for him to move around for days afterwards.

But after the Resurrection, the message is, "Go and tell," and "as the Father sent me, so I am sending you."
Thanks WG. I thought that didn't sound right but didn't want to look it up.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Michael Hill
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by Michael Hill » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:58 am

Metacrock. Have you got evidence of 18 years? I tried an internet search and nothing came up.

There is a lot of dishonesty in the early years of christianity with not just adding to and rewriting the new testament stories and at times making them match up with the old testament, but christian forgeries like in Josephus, etc. They also borrowed freely from other older religions to write the gospels, etc.

There is the supposed Q document which no one has any evidence for, to stop Matthew and Luke just being copies of Mark, though the later John did not use it for some reason.

The books do not read like eye witness accounts. There isn't lots of: I saw this, we did that, Jesus told us, as well as lots of witness names that could be checked (around the time). Where is any physical description of Jesus? What we see njow of Jesus is a western man and not a Jew of the time.

The whole community? Would that be the same community who after hearing his sermons and seeing his miracles let a murderer go free so Jesus could be crucified?

Jesus could never have been the messiah since that comes through the male line and Jesus did not have one. As we can see he did not fulfil the release of the Jews from their Roman bondage, as a real messiah would have. Everyone knew Jesus was a fake, especially the Jews who know gods do not have sons.

There is no reason for keeping his resurrection a secret as that was the big deal about christianity. Any human being can die but how many can rise again? (actually, loads can if you believe the other myths of the time).

I can only quote Ehrman who gives many references which can be checked on, that christianity took a long time to start off, starting with women, children and slaves, the followers the other religions did not want. There were many other religions in Jerusalem and the Roman Empire at the time and he says it began slowly, as religions do. I looked at the wikipedia and it is just christian dogma. I don't think you will find any Jew who believes what you say about the christian population then as there were few christians anywhere then.

I am not really interested in what those three apologists claim because I have found that apologists always lie. It is one of the basic rules of christianity.

Christianity has had it's day, made many people regret that it ever existed, and is now dying. What is god going to do, assuming he still exists as he has not been around for 2,000 years, like his missing son?

Ignoring KNOWN christian forgeries, where are any TRUE accounts from the first century to back up the Jesus story, to say he did all these miracles, died and the sun darkened, there was an earthquake and the dead walked, and he rose again? Is this not worth mentioning?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acter.html

Where is the gospel of Jesus, who came to Earth with a message? Where are all the stories by ordinary people who saw these amazing things in the gospels and elsewhere? If people could not write, a scribe would write for them for a pittance.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by KR Wordgazer » Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:49 pm

I was thinking about this some more. What if Jesus had appeared not just to those who already believed in him (and there were many more disciples besides the 11, so why couldn't he have appeared to 500 at once? Scholars believe that what Paul quotes there is from the very earliest oral tradition, because of the way it's presented). -- what if he had appeared to people in power like Pilate or the chief priests?

When presented with evidence that overturns their paradigm, human nature does not move to immediate acceptance. Most likely he would have been called an imposter, a look-alike, a trickster. He might have gotten arrested again. There might have been a crackdown against his followers years earlier than it actually happened. What probably would NOT have happened was simple acknowledgment that the unthinkable and non-allowable had actually occurred.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9982
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by Metacrock » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:31 pm

Michael Hill wrote:Metacrock. Have you got evidence of 18 years? I tried an internet search and nothing came up.

There is a lot of dishonesty in the early years of christianity with not just adding to and rewriting the new testament stories and at times making them match up with the old testament, but christian forgeries like in Josephus, etc. They also borrowed freely from other older religions to write the gospels, etc.
(1) document your allegation please.

(2) evidence = Helmutt Koester, major liberal scholar, who show that another major liberal (Crosson) agrees with him that pre Mark passion narrative dates to mid first century.

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blog ... art-2.html
There is the supposed Q document which no one has any evidence for, to stop Matthew and Luke just being copies of Mark, though the later John did not use it for some reason.
sorry you need to read up on the synoptic problem.
Thye didn't just make it up so Mat and Luke wouldn't be copies, he theory is based the readings. Mat copied Mark and also used Q and Luke copied Mat and used L. John does use Mark to some extent. But doesn't change anything I said, it's not dishonesty. That is just an unfounded propaganda assumption.
The books do not read like eye witness accounts. There isn't lots of: I saw this, we did that, Jesus told us, as well as lots of witness names that could be checked (around the time). Where is any physical description of Jesus? What we see now of Jesus is a western man and not a Jew of the time.
How do eye witness accounts read? they were distillations of material from whole communities, they are based upon eye witnesses but not written with a modern understanding of court room evidence All witnesses conflict. All they have to be right about is he died on the cross and the tomb was empty.

The whole community? Would that be the same community who after hearing his sermons and seeing his miracles let a murderer go free so Jesus could be crucified?
No that was Jerusalem, I am talking about his followers, the one's who met in the supper rom then moved in together and had all thi9ngs in common.

Jesus could never have been the messiah since that comes through the male line and Jesus did not have one. As we can see he did not fulfil the release of the Jews from their Roman bondage, as a real messiah would have. Everyone knew Jesus was a fake, especially the Jews who know gods do not have sons.
() No requ9rement says Messiah will be male

(2)Israel had a Queen Z(even though she sucked they did not depose her for being a woman.

(3)Jesus descended from males going back to David, that is requirement for Messiah. Mary had a fa. There is also an argument about adoption. Read up on my answer to this

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blog ... hrone.html

There is no reason for keeping his resurrection a secret as that was the big deal about christianity. Any human being can die but how many can rise again? (actually, loads can if you believe the other myths of the time).
you still have not proven that he said to seep it secret. He did not

I can only quote Ehrman who gives many references which can be checked on, that christianity took a long time to start off, starting with women, children and slaves, the followers the other religions did not want. There were many other religions in Jerusalem and the Roman Empire at the time and he says it began slowly, as religions do. I looked at the wikipedia and it is just christian dogma. I don't think you will find any Jew who believes what you say about the christian population then as there were few christians anywhere then.
\

No impact to that argument. What's a long time? so what if it did? I documented that population thing, three scholars Packer Tenny and White Bible Almanac. you have no evidence. No impact anyway, why can[t true religion start the way religions do more importantly we need to get over the idea that God is only working through one faith.
I am not really interested in what those three apologists claim because I have found that apologists always lie. It is one of the basic rules of christianity.
that is a fallacy known as guilt by association. what if I said Bart Ehrman is an idiot because I've met a lot of atheists who are idols. I can show you their posts, Horribly stupid. that doesn't make all atheists idols does it? Ehrman is a fine scholar. You are making the same fallacy, without even reading them. your are judging them because you don't like what they say.


Christianity has had it's day, made many people regret that it ever existed, and is now dying. What is god going to do, assuming he still exists as he has not been around for 2,000 years, like his missing son?
Bull shit. you are spouting hate speech rhetoric. You started on my blog telling me that you were so much smarter than Christians surely you can figure out that not documenting things, using your likes and dislikes as proof and stereo typing all people in a group by the actions of a few is wrong.

Ignoring KNOWN christian forgeries, where are any TRUE accounts from the first century to back up the Jesus story, to say he did all these miracles, died and the sun darkened, there was an earthquake and the dead walked, and he rose again? Is this not worth mentioning?

again you no basis for that claim. your atheist buddies like to say that stu8ff that doesn't make it true. I was researching the Bible when I was an atheist I can tell you that sort of thing can't be probed. You are I bet basing that upon things that have nothing to do with the Gospels. You thought Q source was dishonest, most fundamentalists think it's a plot to destroy faith. you are making unfounded assumptions.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acter.html
Where is the gospel of Jesus, who came to Earth with a message? Where are all the stories by ordinary people who saw these amazing things in the gospels and elsewhere? If people could not write, a scribe would write for them for a pittance.
what makes you think the Gospels writers weren't ordinary people? they were the result of the common people living in the communities.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by KR Wordgazer » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:10 pm

*waves at Michael Hill*

I made a point which you ignored and posted to Metacrock as though I were invisible. Please answer my point and show where it says in the texts that Jesus told people to keep the resurrection a secret. You won't find it because it's not there.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9982
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Post by Metacrock » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:37 am

He quotes Bart Ehrman and then quotes quotes this Jesus myth guy. Doesn't he know Ehrman has trashed the Jesus myth theory and wrote a book against it?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply