Please Help Me Continue to Examine Why I Believe Jesus Rose Bodily from the Dead

Write4U

Thanks for http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ That looks very interesting. It is amazing what people have put together in pursuit of truth and fact.

Clarity: “The 5000” is not just the people from the “feeding of the 5000”. They are people who might have been before or after the resurrection. I figure (guess) there were about 5000 people for whom Yeshua passed the Thomas Test. "So, to make it a nice round number that works into a good title for this idea, I named them “The 5000”. The number is reminiscent of the story of Yeshua’s “Feeding of the Five Thousand”.

If it is all metaphor, then, as I wrote, I’d probably be a “Pagan Humanist”.

I don’t see how it can be all metaphor. If it is all not true, then I think it would have to be a combination of metaphor and lies. In which case, I think I’d side with Smalley in recommending that we let it fade away in the trash heap of what is better forgotten in our human history as being too toxic and too difficult to cull out what is useful for human flourishing from what is harmful.

Lausten

First a technical question. How are you able to select parts of my comment that then show up in your reply in a bold section. I am new to this forum and I’m having great difficulty navigating it. Especially since there are lots of comments - a good problem to have - not complaining at all.

Totally respect your need for strong evidence re a savior or deity. If you are saying that you would never be influenced by the amount of relational trust you have with another human being when deciding if some other human is divine or a savior, then I would posit that you would need to have Yeshua personally pass the “Thomas Test” for you, just as in the story of the apostle Thomas. Do I understand correctly?

SethWT,

To create quote blocks, simply copy and paste whatever text you want into the post you are making, then select that text and click the big quote mark icon. That’s assuming you are in “Visual” mode using the tabs on the right. In"Text" mode, it’s B-Quote.

It’s not the most awesome forum software, but we get by.

@citizenschallengev3

Mriana, that sound interesting, I only know the simpleton’s version. If you were ever into writing more about it, I’d love to read it.

Oh I do know that Sun Worship makes more sense to me than a lot of other worshipful beliefs – after all, we pretty damned well dependent on it* after all.

It makes more sense to me and to view Xianity and other mythologies under that lens, it put them all in perspective for me, make them make more sense to me also.

Simply put, if you see the “son of god” as the “sun of god”, then you see Easter or even Xmas, though that one is more difficult, as being what it is- sun worship, even though Easter is set by the moon. Easter Sunrise Services help to make it all clearer, if one is open to see it. If you understand animism, then you may understand this: So the sun goes down into the “underworld” (below the equator) for three days. The days are shorter and the nights are longer because the sun is in the “underworld”, (Yule keep the log burning all night long on the longest night of the year, awaiting the sun’s return or something like that) on the third day, the sun returns and the days become longer. Now put Ra in place of the sun. Then for the ultimate mind blower, place the Xian deity in place of the sun, as well as replace “underworld” with “he descended into hell (or the dead) and on the third day, he rose again”, and add the sunrise worship services. That’s when you really see the pagan influence on Xianity. There is also the Southern Crux during that time too, but I made things easier with this rendering.

I’ll use the version from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, which is similar to the Catholic and Lutheran version, https://episcopalchurch.org/files/book_of_common_prayer.pdf :

The Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into hell.

The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Just focus on the dying and rising part and given what we know about animism and the evolution of religion and the human mind, you can see the relationship between solar mythology and modern day religion in the Apostle’s Creed along. Of course, I can take this even deeper, but just starting with that alone, is IMO, a good start to seeing that it’s only metaphorical and no real person died, descended, and rose again. Bishop Spong even touches on the metaphoric symbolism of Judaism and Xianity too, but not quite in the way I do. That thing is, Robert Price was right when he said if there ever was a historical Jesus, he never existed as portrayed in the Bible (that’s a paraphrase of what he said). Anyway, if you look at the Apostle’s Creed closely you can see the solar mythology in his dying and rising, especially if you turn Jesus, son of god into sun of god and what the sun die and rise in the sky, mentally. It’s all there, if one’s mind is open to it.

Yeshua personally pass the “Thomas Test” for you, just as in the story of the apostle Thomas. Do I understand correctly?
I don't think you do understand. According to the story as you understand it, Thomas had known Jesus, then "saw" him after he had died on the cross. I don't have any of that context, and lots more context that says things like that don't happen. What clues would I have that it was Jesus standing there showing me his wounds? My first inclination would be that I'm hallucinating in some way. I would not trust my own senses solely for such a thing.

Are you familiar with Elaine Pagels work? I think her take on the story is much better. It was allegory for the Johnian Christians to show that the Thomasonians were wrong.

Elaine Pagels has some good work too and allegory is another good word for Biblical mythology.

SethWT said,

Write4U

Thanks for http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ That looks very interesting. It is amazing what people have put together in pursuit of truth and fact.


Good, I found it makes research a lot easier.

And I also like the fact that it addresses not only biblical inconsistencies, but also analyzes the “Good Stuff”, giving credit to religious Scripture for the positive messages it contains. It provides a more balanced viewpoint to all readers.

 

p.s. the big “QUOTE” marks moves any highlighted passage into gray quoted frame or back into the clear post mode.

p.s. the big "QUOTE" marks moves any highlighted passage into gray quote mode or back into the clear post mode.

Widdershins,

“To be clear, I don’t mind if you’re Catholic or Mormon (well, I may be a bit of a Mormophobe) or a Voodoo priest or whatever. It’s all good. You’re polite and likable and that’s good enough for me. I feel no deep seated urge to purge all religion from the face of the planet like some of my fellow atheists do. If ever I come off as combative I promise you, I’m speaking to my own life experience, not to you in the angry bits. And if you believe there is evidence of any sort I would love to hear it. I will rip it to shreds if I don’t find it convincing, and I never have, but it wont’ be personal.”

I am really loving this forum because of “bitingly” civil and candid post like yours! Thanks! This is fun and informative.

Thanks for the clarity re evidence for the existence of people vs the occurrence of magical events. Whether or not the characters of the Bible are fictitious or not is interesting as history, but, I’m pretty sure you agree, the red meat is found in whether or not magical things happened.

I’d like to dive a bit deeper into the words “magic” and “mystic” if you are inclined.

If I have it right, the Roman Catholic (RC) understanding of the miraculous works of Yeshua (Jesus) and the apostles in the New Testament were not produced by “magic”. Rather, and I believe I am not just splitting hairs or parsing words needlessly, they were metaphysical actions performed through and with Yeshua and the apostles but not by them acting alone. Harry Potter learned a spell, Harry Potter cast the spell and it worked as magic. He did not enter into a relationship with the mystical and personal “I Am” such that the “I Am” acted through him. The rites, rituals and Sacraments of the RC Church are similarly understood. Is this distinction familiar to you (I strongly suspect it is)? What do you make of it?

Let the shredding begin! :slight_smile:

I have a serious question about Jesus’ gender. If Mary was a virgin and her immaculate conception of Jesus was of a spiritual rather than a phyical naturem how is it possible that jaseuscould have been born a male. It takes male sperm to produce a male child.

The introduction of male sperm immediately destroys the story of avirgin Mary and the stroy of immaculate conception. By the laws of nature, Jedsus should have been a female and a clone of Mary.

I direct the reader to the Silvery Salamander which experiences “immaculate conception” and due to the absence of male sperm is only able to produce female clones of the mother.

Can anyone point to logical reason why this was not the case with the acknowledged story of Mary’s “immaculate conception”, without contradicting all medical knowledge of procreation?

SethWT said,

I don’t see how it can be all metaphor. If it is all not true, then I think it would have to be a combination of metaphor and lies


From my perspective it is not so much that the story of Jesus sharing bread and fishes with some interested bystanders is false, but that the facts of the situation are obviously completely lies. I have heard some stories told by fishermen about the big one that got away, but this story as “reported” in the bible even a writer of fables would laugh at the utter nonsense.

It is physically impossible to feed any number people larger than perhaps a dozen people with the available number of loafs of bread and fishes that Jesus was reported to have had available . That he was able to feed 5000 people with a few loafs of bread a fishes is an outrageous lie, designed to intimidate the people who later listened to the story, by making them believe that 5000 people were witness to this event and thus claimed credibility instead of metaphor.

Thus, if as you remarked the story was a combination of metaphor and lies, it loses all value of informational truth on which the whole mythology is based. Was it not enough to tell the story of Jesus sharing his food with several poor bystanders? Did it have to be an utter falsehood?

It just becomes a tall tale at best and a deliberate misdirection at worst. Hardly the properties of “divine revelation” which the bible claims and more like one of Trump’s 15000 lies which remain unquestioned by the Trump believers. And that is an accurate number. No metaphor here.

I don’t know how Gandalf could have known any of this, do you?
He's a fictional character in a fictional book. The author can have him know whatever he wants.

@Lausten Deus ex machina. The author either constructs the character well or the author doesn’t. That’s why the Bible is so impressive. It isn’t constructed like the Dhammapada, Quran, Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Kojiki, etc.

Please Help Me Continue to Examine Why I Believe Jesus Rose Bodily from the Dead
Why is it necessary to assert that Jesus rose bodily from the dead? Would it not be more believable that his beneficent legacy was remembered and grew spiritually in the minds of his followers after his death?

History abounds with the legacies of great and beloved leaders who left an enduring spriritual impression in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them for the positive image they projected during their lifetime. Did they all rise bodily from the dead?

And of course the opposite is true also. History abounds with the legacies of the monstrous leaders who left and enduring spiritual impression of evil in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them with disgust. Did they rise bodily from the dead?

IMO, all miracles which contradict natural laws are allegorical and/or metaphorical in essence. They should be considered and treated that way.

Only then can we understand and learn the abstract lessons from the stories without the messy confusion of assigning supernatural abilities of some people. That’s the stuff of mythology and fables and only serves to create contradictions, confusion and in the case of atheists, rejection.

There is plenty good in the bible without the distraction of miracles. But if theists insist on supernatural beings and doings, oh what a tangled web we weave when first we misrepresent historical fact.

 

Why is it necessary to assert that Jesus rose bodily from the dead? Would it not be more believable that his beneficent legacy was remembered and grew spiritually in the minds of his followers after his death?

History abounds with the legacies of great and beloved leaders who left an enduring spriritual impression in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them for the positive image they projected during their lifetime. Did they all rise bodily from the dead?

And of course the opposite is true also. History abounds with the legacies of the monstrous leaders who left and enduring spiritual impression of evil in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them with disgust. Did they rise bodily from the dead?

IMO, all miracles which contradict natural laws are allegorical and/or metaphorical in essence. They should be considered and treated that way.

Only then can we understand and learn the abstract lessons from the stories without the messy confusion of assigning supernatural abilities of some people. That’s the stuff of mythology and fables and only serves to create contradictions, confusion and in the case of atheists, rejection.

There is plenty good in the bible without the distraction of miracles. But if theists insist on supernatural beings and doings, oh what a tangled web we weave when first we misrepresent historical fact.


[Laughs] Oh, boy.

[Laughs] Oh, boy.
Not constructive or engaging David.
Deus ex machina.
Those words, I don't think you know what they mean.
Not constructive or engaging David.
The guy has already made it pretty clear that he isn't interested in a dialogue with me. I could give my honest opinion about his character and presentation but that would just get me blocked. What can I do? Waste my time by responding to it? Ask pointless questions?
Those words, I don’t think you know what they mean.
Don't think I know what they mean?! God of the machine. It's a literary devise. Producing a solution out of thin air. The Greeks had plays which employed devices like megaphones, uh . . . well, I'm thinking about hypocrites which was all about show, everything exaggerated, but deus ex machina would use a lift or something to produce the god that would solve the problem of the plot. Hitchins said Rowling incorporated all sorts of deus ex machina but I don't know. I wouldn't doubt it.

How about Monty Python? The scene where Brian falls into the spaceship. That’s one.

David asks, What can I do?
Why would you comment on his character? His questions are quite standard discussion material about modern people interacting with ancient scripture and stories of heroes. I've had these discussions with believers and non-believers of all stripes. Your questions are only pointless when they veer off into your interpretation of the Bible and make assertions based on your preferences. Even when you put up a "source", it's a guy who says that the math of evolution is ridiculous. There is no way to engage with a comment like that.
God of the machine. It’s a literary devise.
Okay, you know the definition. I guess I was thrown by the what you applied it to. A wizard proposing to know something of an after life is not a device to explain a plot hole. It's rather expected of wizards. What's interesting is, the same device is a major theme of the New Testament. One person in the OT ascends to heaven and there is nothing there about how you can join him. No one in the OT "conquers death". Salvation is Jesus' thing. But is it somehow "real" for Jesus and Christians, but a literary device for every other story?