Jesus' Reasurrection

[Hope12]

Was Jesus according to facts, raised in a fleshly body or in a spirit body.

Many have tossed this one around and around and yet what is the facts.

Common sense tells us that once a body is dead who or what is to be raised? Yet, was Jesus raised with all the wounds he had gotten when nailed and slaughtered? What do you all think. What does religion teach verses what the Bible says?

I look forward to your replies.
Thanks,
Hope12

[KelvinG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hope12
Was Jesus according to facts, raised in a fleshly body or in a spirit body.

Many have tossed this one around and around and yet what is the facts.

Common sense tells us that once a body is dead who or what is to be raised? Yet, was Jesus raised with all the wounds he had gotten when nailed and slaughtered? What do you all think. What does religion teach verses what the Bible says?

Facts!?! Good luck finding those.

Common sense tells me that Jesus never rose from the dead at all.
Common sense makes me question whether Jesus really existed.
So, debating how he rose from the dead is a pointless exercise.

[Upchurch]

There are four likely* possibilities:

1. The entire crucifixion/resurrection story is myth.
2. The entire crucificxion/ressurection story happened as described in the Bible.
3. Jesus died on the cross and his ressurection fabricated over time.
4. Jesus didn't actually die on the cross and his "ressurection" after three days was due some necessary recovery time from his ordeal.

.....and of course I just now realize that you aren't asking whether or not the resurrection happened but what form it took.


I have to agree with Kev. We don't have hard facts to deal with, only different stories from different points of view. There is also the matter of which Biblical books to consider. The scope is too big to come to a meaningful answer.




* I'm giving devine miracles the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. I personally don't find them very likely. I'm not going to address possibilities like mistaken identity or alien involvement or anything like that to bring the discussion to within a reasonable scope.

[lumos]

The story I heard is that people went to dig up his body and ...

It was gone! Gosh, what could have happened? The dead Jesus must have gotten up and walked off by himself!

Since nobody knows if Jesus even existed yet people still write stories about him, I've got one to add: I've actually spotted him! I saw the Zombie Jesus last Halloween. He was walking around saying "brains, brains, I need brains." Zombie Jesus still walks the Earth! He'll do so for 40 millenia.

[triadboy]

If you are a Gnostic Christian - Jesus was always a spirit.
The person crucified was his "twin". Jesus was standing on a hillside laughing.

[On a side note: A Christian at work has an oil painting hanging in his cube (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot) - of a laughing Jesus. I know of no place in the bible where Jesus laughs. But I know the tradition of the Gnostic Jesus laughing at the crucifiction of his twin. Should I tell him he has a Gnostic Jesus in his cube? ]

He appeared to Paul as a spirit - which is understandable since I believe Paul was Gnostic.

He appeared to Mary as a spirit

Quote:

Matthew 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
27:64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
27:65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
27:66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
.
.
.
[28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

The body was inside a cave with guards. Then the body was gone. That usually means his body was resurrected.

In Luke he appears to the disciples:

Quote:

24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have

He has a body.

So the answer to your question is - who cares? It is entirely a myth. Pursuing it beyond this causes discussions based on technicalities within the myth!

[Beleth]

Does Santa Claus, according to facts, have to lay his finger aside of his nose in order to successfully ascend a chimney?

[Yahweh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hope12
Was Jesus according to facts, raised in a fleshly body or in a spirit body.

Many have tossed this one around and around and yet what is the facts.

Common sense tells us that once a body is dead who or what is to be raised? Yet, was Jesus raised with all the wounds he had gotten when nailed and slaughtered? What do you all think. What does religion teach verses what the Bible says?

I dont know, are the details of the crucifixion historically accurate? Seems strange to me that a bunch of Romans would crucify a guy, take him down three days later, and bury him - wasnt it in the style of the Romans to simply keep people on the cross indefinitely?

(I dont know anything about the Roman culture, I'm only speculating.)

[Piscivore]

Was Jesus according to facts, a man-crazy boy lover or married to Mary Magdeline.

Many have tossed this one around and around and yet what is the facts.

Common sense tells us that a guy who spends all his time with twelve other dudes, has long hair and wears dresses, well, isn't there something suspicious? Yet, was Jesus canoodling with the alleged prostitute he seemd to like alot? What do you all think. What does religion teach verses what the Bible says?

I look forward to your replies.
Thanks,
Pesky

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by triadboy
He appeared to Paul as a spirit - which is understandable since I believe Paul was Gnostic.
[/i]

For clarification:

In my opinion, Paul was preaching about a gnostic Jesus. Paul doesn't know anything about an historical Jesus. He knows nothing about anything Jesus said in the New Testament.

His Jesus is a dying godman in the tradition of Osiris/Dionysus/Mithra. He was promoting a Jewish Mystery Religion.

It is only with "Mark" that the 'historical' Jesus comes to life. "Mark" places the dying god man in Jerusalem in 30 AD.

Matthew/Luke use Mark to create their gospels. And there you have it....

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
There are four likely* possibilities:

1. The entire crucifixion/resurrection story is myth.
2. The entire crucificxion/ressurection story happened as described in the Bible.
3. Jesus died on the cross and his ressurection fabricated over time.
4. Jesus didn't actually die on the cross and his "ressurection" after three days was due some necessary recovery time from his ordeal.

I will leave it to the apologists to argue for the second possibility. Of the remaining possibilities, the only one that stands a chance of being reasonable is that Jesus died on the cross but that the resurrection accounts are legendary. The other two are historically implausible.

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
I have to agree with Kev. We don't have hard facts to deal with, only different stories from different points of view.

That isn't quite true. That the New Testament exists and contains various statements is in itself hard fact. A historical reconstruction of the resurrection does not have to accept that all those various statements are true, but it does have to account for the existence of those statements in a plausible way.

The debate about whether the resurrection happened is highly polarized, and both sides tend to overstate their cases. For example, on the conservative side, N. T. Wright insists that both the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus would be necessary to convince the disciples, while on the skeptical side, Lüdemann insists that his historical reconstruction demonstrates that the resurrection did not happen, even though he is only justified in making the more modest claim that his reconstruction provides a plausible naturalistic explanation for the resurrection accounts.

Reginald H. Fuller wrote a book called The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, which dissects the New Testament resurrection accounts. Lüdemann's recent book, The Resurrection of Christ, is in a similar vein. On the conservative side, N. T. Wright's The Resurrection and the Son of God is a good read. Infidels.org has a mix of utter garbage and useful information; if you sift carefully, you'll find some interesting leads (like bits and pieces about Sabbatai Sevi). Bede.org.uk is a Christian site, but deals fairly with skeptics who argue well, like Robin Lane Fox, while countering the crackpot stuff from Infidels.org.

[Piscivore]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
...does have to account for the existence of those statements in a plausible way.

The fact that humans have the capacity to invent fiction is not a plausible way those statements could have come into existance?

[SezMe]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
That isn't quite true. That the New Testament exists and contains various statements is in itself hard fact.

The book, The Bible Code exists and contains various statements is in itself hard fact.

So what? It says absolutely nothing about the content of either document.

[Lord Emsworth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hope12
Was Jesus according to facts, raised in a fleshly body or in a spirit body.

Many have tossed this one around and around and yet what is the facts.

Common sense tells us that once a body is dead who or what is to be raised? Yet, was Jesus raised with all the wounds he had gotten when nailed and slaughtered? What do you all think. What does religion teach verses what the Bible says?

I look forward to your replies.
Thanks,
Hope12

Taking the Gospel stories at face value one has to conclude a bodily resurrection. And I think a bodily ascension.

Seems like heaven is a material place after all ...

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Piscivore
The fact that humans have the capacity to invent fiction is not a plausible way those statements could have come into existance?

Actually, often it is a plausible way, but it depends on the kind of statements. A story could very well be explained as a legend, but an offhand remark in a letter might need to be accounted for differently.

[Piscivore]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Actually, often it is a plausible way, but it depends on the kind of statements. A story could very well be explained as a legend, but an offhand remark in a letter might need to be accounted for differently.

Why? Are people incapable of creating fiction in correspondence? because I do it all the time.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Piscivore
Why? Are people incapable of creating fiction in correspondence? because I do it all the time.

That's why I said offhand remark in a letter. Think of it, more or less, as a card player tipping his hand.

Now this isn't from a letter, but it's probably a good example of a text from which one can glean interesting information:

Quote:

Mark 6:1-6:

He [Jesus] left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, "Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.

Now, what might you learn from this passage? I await your response.

[Piscivore]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
That's why I said offhand remark in a letter. Think of it, more or less, as a card player tipping his hand.

I don't understand- "offhand remarks" cannot be fictional? Is that what you are saying?

By the way, my sidekick, JoJo the Squid Boy, says to tell you "hi."

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Now this isn't from a letter, but it's probably a good example of a text from which one can glean interesting information:

Now, what might you learn from this passage? I await your response.

That the author may have wanted to show some weakness in his protagonist in order to avoid "Superman syndrome."

The author may have wanted to demonstrate some antagonism towards his protagonist to avoid the character being seen as a "Mary Sue."

The author may have wanted to demonstrate some early antagonism towards his protagonist to forshadow the conflict at the climax of the novel. This is my personal favourite- but it gives the author more credit than may be his due.

The author might have added the scene to introduce the protagonist's extended family and explain his alienation from them without a lot of exposition.

The author might have meant it as a commentary on the morals or customs of a specific group of his contemporaries.

The author might have just been trying to add flavour to an otherwise drab stretch of narrative.

Could have been some combination of all or some of these reasons. None of which require the passage be factual.

What do you make of this:

Quote:

Thus did he pray, and Apollo heard his prayer. He came down
furious from the summits of Olympus, with his bow and his quiver
upon his shoulder, and the arrows rattled on his back with the rage
that trembled within him. He sat himself down away from the ships with
a face as dark as night, and his silver bow rang death as he shot
his arrow in the midst of them. First he smote their mules and their
hounds, but presently he aimed his shafts at the people themselves,
and all day long the pyres of the dead were burning.

[Z]

While we're asking, was the Worm-Man who ruled the galaxy actually a God-Emperor, or merely a mutant freak?

[Lord Emsworth]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Now, what might you learn from this passage? I await your response.

That it is a variation on the same old theme that you need faith before miracles can/will be wrought?

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Piscivore
What do you make of this:

Thus did he pray, and Apollo heard his prayer. He came down
furious from the summits of Olympus, with his bow and his quiver
upon his shoulder, and the arrows rattled on his back with the rage
that trembled within him. He sat himself down away from the ships
with a face as dark as night, and his silver bow rang death as he shot
his arrow in the midst of them. First he smote their mules and their
hounds, but presently he aimed his shafts at the people themselves,
and all day long the pyres of the dead were burning.

First off, it is obviously poetry. Googling shows that it was from the Iliad, Book I. The fact that it is poetry is significant in itself, since with poetry comes, well, poetic license, so we should expect flowery exaggeration. The surrounding verses actually do have some interesting historical clues, though:

Quote:

"Hear me,"
he cried,
"O god
of the silver bow,
that protectest Chryse
and holy Cilla
and rulest Tenedos
with thy might,
hear me oh
thou of Sminthe.

If I
have ever
decked your temple with garlands,
or burned your thigh-bones
in fat of bulls
or goats,
grant my prayer,
and let your arrows
avenge these my tears
upon the Danaans."

From these stanzas, we get clues to how Apollo was worshipped in ancient Greece. We also get clues as to what the Greeks expected their relationship with the gods to be. They butter up the gods with ritual sacrifices, and hope for favors from the gods in return. Of course, the whole Iliad itself suggested that a city called Troy may have existed, which indeed it did. We can also surmise that the Iliad is possibly a highly fictionalized version of a real war. So even from something obviously fictional, we can glean some interesting information, or at least leads to information.

Now back to Mark. I'm surprised, Piscavore, that you miss the obvious skeptical interpretation. Presume, for the sake of argument, that behind Mark 6:1-6 are real events. If you read between the lines of Mark 6:1-6, what do you see?

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hope12
What does religion teach verses what the Bible says?

Huh? What?

What religion? Do you mean the Christian religion(s)? How is that different from what the Bible says? Do you mean some other religion, like Bhuddism? That's easy then. That religion says nothing about Jesus, which makes it considerably different from what "the Bible" says.

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by triadboy
If you are a Gnostic Christian - Jesus was always a spirit.
The person crucified was his "twin". Jesus was standing on a hillside laughing.

I reread my post and thought I should clear something up here. This portion made Gnostic Jesus seem maniacal, which isn't the case:

The spirit Jesus was laughing at the peoples inability to see what was going on. They were crucifying his twin - also a spirit.

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Now, what might you learn from this passage? I await your response.

I learned there is a serious violation of the "Jesus is god" camp in this passage:

Quote:

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work.

It's obvious to me - at this early point, Jesus was not God to the people telling his story. He became God at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

[SezMe]

You didn't ask me, jjramsey, but I'd like to join the conversation.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that behind Mark 6:1-6 are real events (my emphasis), here is my interpretation.

Jesus left town and, upon returning, started carrying on like some messiah or something. All the homies knew he was just blowing smoke and they were offended that he thought he was something special. He didn't like their response and told them everyone else bought his act. So he tried a few Randi-like sleight of hand tricks and the local yokels just scoffed at him. Jesus, like Geller, got his feelings hurt and, like Geller, worked himself up a right good snit.

How'd I do?

[hgc]

Quote:

...

How'd I do?

You just made a prediction that spoon-bending and clock-starting will be the basis for a new religion in 300 years. Dystopian.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by SezMe
You didn't ask me, jjramsey, but I'd like to join the conversation.

Please do.

Quote:

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that behind Mark 6:1-6 are real events (my emphasis), here is my interpretation.

Jesus left town and, upon returning, started carrying on like some messiah or something. All the homies knew he was just blowing smoke and they were offended that he thought he was something special. He didn't like their response and told them everyone else bought his act. So he tried a few Randi-like sleight of hand tricks and the local yokels just scoffed at him. Jesus, like Geller, got his feelings hurt and, like Geller, worked himself up a right good snit.

How'd I do?

Pretty good, and much better than Piscivore. If you are looking for a parsimonious skeptical interpretion, you are on the right track. A few problems:

1. If Jesus were a magician doing sleight-of-hand tricks, he could do the same tricks in Nazareth that he did in Capernaum, but the passage implies, however, that Jesus all but ran out of juice in his hometown.
   
2. Sleight-of-hand tricks per se would not be the tricks one would use to effect supposed healing miracles, which were the kind of miracles Jesus was known for doing. You are better off looking at things like the placebo effect or other psychosomatic stuff.
   
3. There is no need to assume an intent to deceive on Jesus' part. Indeed, the problems Jesus had make more sense if he wasn't trying to deceive.

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Sleight-of-hand tricks per se would not be the tricks one would use to effect supposed healing miracles, which were the kind of miracles Jesus was known for doing.

Where do we find what Jesus was 'known' to do?

[Lord Emsworth]

There is abosultely no need to interpret anything in the passage as real history or as a real event. It is chock full with symbolism:

Nazareth and its inhabitants = Israel; the Jews
Jesus and his doings and teachings = Christianity; the right way to follow "God"
the few healings = a few Jews that are receptive to Christianity
The outlying villages = the Gentiles, who are far more receptive to Christianity than Israel. Rome, Corinth, Galatia maybe even
etc

Here is a line of the passage that has been left off in what jjramsey quotes:

Quote:

Mark 6
6 [...] Then he went about among the villages teaching.

Quote:

Triadboy:
I learned there is a serious violation of the "Jesus is god" camp in this passage:[Mark 6:5]

Not necessarily. In Christianity it is never "God's" fault if something doesn't work, remember that. Everything will be blamed on the individual or the individuals in question most likely for a lack of faith, trust etc.

That Jesus can work no wonders here is quite obviously not his fault, but the fault of the inhabitants of the town who are lacking the proper attitude.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
There is abosultely no need to interpret anything in the passage as real history or as a real event. It is chock full with symbolism:

Nazareth and its inhabitants = Israel; the Jews
Jesus and his doings and teachings = Christianity; the right way to follow "God"
the few healings = a few Jews that are receptive to Christianity
The outlying villages = the Gentiles, who are far more receptive to Christianity than Israel. Rome, Corinth, Galatia maybe even
etc

Do you honestly think this passes the parsimony test? As a way of conveying the message that Christianity would be the province of a handful of Jews and a multitude of Gentiles, it is entirely too cryptic. There is nothing in the text to clue the audience that it is an allegory.

Now here is the obvious, most parsimonious skeptical explanation:

Jesus is charismatic enough that, like some modern-day faith healers, he can convince some people that they have been healed, especially since these people are strangers who are curious about him and even in awe of him because of rumors, his own personality, and so on. In his own hometown, however, everyone knows him and isn't in awe of him, so the placebo effect that Jesus would normally be able to encourage doesn't work here very well, if at all.

That explanation makes a lot more sense than Mark burying an allegory in an account that doesn't even resemble a parable, let alone any other figurative language.

[Lord Emsworth]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Do you honestly think this passes the parsimony test?

Yes. Nothing of that happened in reality. How parsimonious can you get?

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
As a way of conveying the message that Christianity would be the province of a handful of Jews and a multitude of Gentiles,

Would be?? Has been or is. Don't forget when Mark was written: mid sixties or later. At least sometime after Paul adressed his letters to communites in Rome, Corinth, Galatia etc pp.

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
it is entirely too cryptic. There is nothing in the text to clue the audience that it is an allegory.

Except that it fits like a charm the already past history of Christianity you mean?

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Now here is the obvious, most parsimonious skeptical explanation:

Jesus is charismatic enough that, like some modern-day faith healers, he can convince some people that they have been healed, especially since these people are strangers who are curious about him and even in awe of him because of rumors, his own personality, and so on. In his own hometown, however, everyone knows him and isn't in awe of him, so the placebo effect that Jesus would normally be able to encourage doesn't work here very well, if at all.

That explanation makes a lot more sense than Mark burying an allegory in an account that doesn't even resemble a parable, let alone any other figurative language.

Allegory != parable

Maybe calling the whole thing a myth would be most apt.

Quote:

Myth
1.
1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
2. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

[Piscivore]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
First off, it is obviously poetry. Googling shows that it was from the Iliad, Book I. The fact that it is poetry is significant in itself, since with poetry comes, well, poetic license, so we should expect flowery exaggeration. The surrounding verses actually do have some interesting historical clues, though:

From these stanzas, we get clues to how Apollo was worshipped in ancient Greece. We also get clues as to what the Greeks expected their relationship with the gods to be. They butter up the gods with ritual sacrifices, and hope for favors from the gods in return. Of course, the whole Iliad itself suggested that a city called Troy may have existed, which indeed it did. We can also surmise that the Iliad is possibly a highly fictionalized version of a real war. So even from something obviously fictional, we can glean some interesting information, or at least leads to information.

And as you already agreed, prose can be fiction as well. From the Illiad's example, we can surmise that the author of Mark, as Margaret Mitchell did, used a few historical details to lend some versimilitude to his novel.

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Now back to Mark. I'm surprised, Piscavore, that you miss the obvious skeptical interpretation.

"The obvious skeptical interpretation?" By that do you mean the one you're prepared to argue against? There is no "skeptical dogma" to dictate my interpretation of the text, so I'm afraid the "obvious" one escapes me.

This text has all the hallmarks of myth, of fiction so I approach it as such. I can also recognise the use of several techniques of plot construction, exposition, and use of character typical of fiction in this work. Therefore, I'm skeptical this is a true account. Sorry if this doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion about what I, as a skeptic, "should" say.

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Presume, for the sake of argument, that behind Mark 6:1-6 are real events. If you read between the lines of Mark 6:1-6, what do you see?

Only if you agree to discuss the impact Sauron's defeat would have on the political landscape of Gondor and The Shire next. Presume they were real events.

[SezMe]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Pretty good, and much better than Piscivore.

I don't think so. I gave a smart-mouthed, irreverent answer. Piscivore was straight-ahead with plausible explanations that derserve consideration.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey

Do you honestly think this passes the parsimony test?

Quote:

Lord Emsworth:

Yes. Nothing of that happened in reality. How parsimonious can you get?

A parsimonious explanation is the simplest explanation that fits the facts, not the explanation that takes the fewest of syllables. You just made the same mistake about what "parsimony" means that an advocate for intelligent design did.

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey

As a way of conveying the message that Christianity would be the province of a handful of Jews and a multitude of Gentiles, it is entirely too cryptic. There is nothing in the text to clue the audience that it is an allegory.

Quote:

Lord Emsworth:

Except that it fits like a charm the already past history of Christianity you mean?

So you honestly expect Mark's audience to read his account and think, "Oh, Mark doesn't really mean that Jesus went back to his hometown. We know from our history that we should allegorically interpret Nazareth as Israel." Please!

Quote:

Piscivore:

And as you already agreed, prose can be fiction as well. From the Illiad's example, we can surmise that the author of Mark, as Margaret Mitchell did, used a few historical details to lend some versimilitude to his novel.

--snip--

This text has all the hallmarks of myth, of fiction so I approach it as such. I can also recognise the use of several techniques of plot construction, exposition, and use of character typical of fiction in this work.

"[P]lot construction, exposition, and use of character" is present in any work that tells a story whether it is fiction such as novel, or non-fiction such as a biography or a history, or even a work of propagandistic history, which may be wholly fictional or a mix of fiction and fact. Authors try to fit bits of history into a thesis, an outline, one or more themes, and so on.

How the Gospel of Mark is used tells against it being a novel. No one treated it as a work intended to be fiction. Also, it doesn't have the melodrama of, say, Chaereas and Callirhoe, a Greek historical romance written roughly the same time as Mark, give or take a century, and most definitely an intentional work of fiction. So that leaves it as being some flavor of history, even propagandistic history, which brings us back to the question of how much of Mark is fact and how much is fiction.

Quote:

Piscivore:

"The obvious skeptical interpretation?" By that do you mean the one you're prepared to argue against?

No, I meant the interpretation that would jump out at a reasonable atheist. I guess I forget that not all reasonable atheists look at the back and forth between apologists, counter-apologists, scholars at the conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum, fundamentalists both religious and atheistic, and so on, and are aware of the overreachings and crackpot theories at the extremes.

If you want to argue that Mark is an unreliable source, and should be treated as heavily encrusted with fiction, that is perfectly fair. If you want to argue that it is pure fiction akin to a novel written for entertainment, that is an abuse of the facts.

[Lord Emsworth]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
A parsimonious explanation is the simplest explanation that fits the facts, not the explanation that takes the fewest of syllables. You just made the same mistake about what "parsimony" means that an advocate for intelligent design did.


So you honestly expect Mark's audience to read his account and think, "Oh, Mark doesn't really mean that Jesus went back to his hometown. We know from our history that we should allegorically interpret Nazareth as Israel." Please!

Wow what a deep reply. Anyways, yes I would say that the author of Mark expected his audience to understand it that way.

[Lord Emsworth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Piscivore

"The obvious skeptical interpretation?" By that do you mean the one you're prepared to argue against?

I think that the reply you got to this question means "Yes."

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
If you want to argue that Mark is an unreliable source, and should be treated as heavily encrusted with fiction, that is perfectly fair. If you want to argue that it is pure fiction akin to a novel written for entertainment, that is an abuse of the facts.

What are the facts?! Mark was not written by an eyewitness to any events. His geography is sketchy - he doesn't seem familiar with the area. Give me some facts!

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey

So you honestly expect Mark's audience to read his account and think, "Oh, Mark doesn't really mean that Jesus went back to his hometown. We know from our history that we should allegorically interpret Nazareth as Israel." Please!

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

Wow what a deep reply. Anyways, yes I would say that the author of Mark expected his audience to understand it that way.

Okaaaay. At least I know where you stand.

May I ask what scholars you could reference to support your position?

Quote:

Originally posted by triadboy

What are the facts?! Mark was not written by an eyewitness to any events. His geography is sketchy - he doesn't seem familiar with the area. Give me some facts!

Ok, here's stuff that we can glean from the New Testament:

• Jesus' hometown was Nazareth, an insignificant town in the Galilee.
  
• Jesus was probably born during the tail end of the reign of Herod Matthew and Luke, despite their diverging birth narratives, agree on this much. Matthew implies that Jesus' parents had lived in Bethlehem and had moved to Nazareth because of threats to Jesus' and their safety, while Luke implies that Jesus' parents' hometown was Nazareth, with a trip to Bethlehem being a census-imposed detour for a few days. The divergent (if not outright conflicting) accounts of how Jesus had Bethlehem as a birthplace, plus the historical problems with the census that Luke reports, suggest that Matthew and Luke are trying in their own ways to "force" Jesus to be born in Bethlehem--which suggests that Jesus probably wasn't really born in Bethlehem.
  
• Jesus' base of operations during his ministry was Capernaum.
  
• Jesus' family thought he was nuts.
  
• Jesus has several brothers, one of whom was James.
  
• He was the son of a carpenter, and probably a carpenter himself for most of his lifetime.
  
• Jesus did baptisms during his ministry, and seems to have been associated with John the Baptist. He may have been a disciple of John the Baptist, an embarassment that the Gospels cover in the way they present Jesus' baptism and John the Baptist himself.
  
• Jesus was crucified as a would-be Messiah.

This is the stuff that the historians and the moderate and liberal Bible scholars would agree on. I'd recommend at least skimming through the first couple volumes of John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew. I hesitate to outright recommend E. P. Sanders' work only because I haven't read it yet , but I've heard good things, and his name comes up frequently in the footnotes and references of other works on the historical Jesus. I've mentioned Lüdemann, Fuller, and Wright already.

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey

Jesus' hometown was Nazareth, an insignificant town in the Galilee.

It depends on which gospel you believe. Matthew had to have Jesus be from Bethlahem because the OT said the messiah would come from there.

There is a tradition that the man was "Jesus the Nazarene" - which is NOT a person from Nazareth.

Then, of course there is the question about the existence of Nazareth during this period.

Quote:

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

*************

In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.
Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).

From here -
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

I can't buy this 'fact'.

Quote:

...which suggests that Jesus probably wasn't really born in Bethlehem.

Agree

Quote:

Jesus has several brothers, one of whom was James.

Of course this is a problem for a perpetual virgin (BTW, I dated her in High School) There is the case where "brother' means "comrade".

Quote:

He was the son of a carpenter, and probably a carpenter himself for most of his lifetime.

Jesus did baptisms during his ministry, and seems to have been associated with John the Baptist. He may have been a disciple of John the Baptist, an embarassment that the Gospels cover in the way they present Jesus' baptism and John the Baptist himself.

This is part of the story, but by no means a fact.

Quote:

Jesus was crucified as a would-be Messiah.

There are people that say Jesus was 'hung on a tree'. There are no Roman records of this crucifiction. There were a lot of writers in the area at that time who no nothing of this event.

Quote:

This is the stuff that the historians and the moderate and liberal Bible scholars would agree on.

Hard to believe.

[Z]

Historians can't even agree whether or not Jesus actually existed.

Even the scant evidence in the form of a few census lists is questionable.

As for the New Testament - might as well use Aesop's Fables as a source of 'historical evidence'.

eta Here ya go - evidence, pro and con.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

[H3LL]

Assuming the buybull to be true, Jebus is the immortal son of god.

So he could never have died in the first place.

It was just another scam. "Hahahahah! Fooled you!" sniggered god in his infantile way.

But from the guy that pulled the hillarious fruit in Eden stunt, it is what we have come to expect.