Log in

View Full Version : Demystifying the Resurrection!


jackketch
2006-12-14, 15:12
De-mystifying the Resurrection

In my other bible thread I offered Daz that I would do my best to demystifying any biblical incident he wanted. As he choose the resurrection of Christ I feel this warranted its own thread.

A word of warning to start:

I wanted to use an accurate Bible translation for this. However I couldn’t find the one I wanted online (the New English Bible, the original NOT the one that was revised for political reasons) so I’m typing this in by hand and my typing SUCKS. SO any mistakes are mine and mine alone.

I’ve gone for Mark for a couple of good theological reasons but mainly because its short and probably the nearest to the truth…whatever that ‘truth’ might be.

Ok, read this through like you were reading a newspaper article from a government you don’t trust, ie ANY Government!



Mark Chapter 15

(From verse 42). By this time evening had come; and it was Preparation-day (that is the, the day before the Sabbath), Joseph of Arimathaea, a respected member of the Council, a man who looked forward to the kingdom of God, bravely went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead; so he sent for the centurion and asked him whether it was long since he died. And when he heard the centurion’s report , he gave Joseph leave to take the dead body. So Jospeh bought a linen sheet, took him down from the cross, and wrapped him in the sheet. Then he laid him in a tomb cut out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the entrance. And Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of Jospeh were watching and saw where he was laid.

Chapter 16

When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic oils intending to go and anoint him; and very early on the Sunday morning , just after sunrise, they came to the tomb. They were wondering to themselves who would roll away the stone for them from the entrance to the tomb, when they looked up and saw that the stone, huge as it was, had been rolled back already. They went into the tomb, where they saw a youth sitting on the right hand side, wearing a white robe; and they were dumbfounded. But he said to them, ‘Fear nothing ; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised again; he is not here; look, there is the place where they laid him. But go give this message to his disciples and Peter: “He is going on to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you’.



And now lets look at it in a bit more detail.

quote: By this time evening had come; and it was Preparation-day (that is the, the day before the Sabbath),.

The very first thing you need to notice is that the author explains Jewish terms, ie for a non Jewish readership. So its not an unreasonable assumption to assume this was written a fair time after the events described when Christianity expanded to include gentiles (and gentiles who were far enough removed from Israel not to know the common Aramaic/Hebrew terms). The scholarly consensus is that it was written about 70AD , so some 40 years after the event.

Scholars also have a problem with the ‘timeline’ of the events described but I’ll leave going into that mystery.

quote: Joseph of Arimathaea, a respected member of the Council, a man who looked forward to the kingdom of God, bravely went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus

Why ‘bravely’? BECAUSE HE WAS A TERRORIST! Christians would like you to believe that ‘waiting for the kingdom of god’ was some lofty spiritual aim and Joseph was a ‘saint’. Was he fuck! The phrase means he was one of the men who wanted the violent end of Roman occupation and to see a Israel as a theocracy. The closest way of understanding this today would be to say he was a member of Al Qaeda!

The other really important thing to note is he asks for the ‘body’ and not the ‘corpse’. Again gallons of theological ink and not a little blood has been shed over this and I won’t bore you with it but as you will see in a minute something is beginning to ‘smell’.

quote: Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead; so he sent for the centurion and asked him whether it was long since he died. And when he heard the centurion’s report , he gave Joseph leave to take the dead body

By now you should be beginning to really question the whole account. Pilate had a LOT of experience with crucifixions. And it smelled fishy to him. So much so he wants it verified. He wants to know how long it has been, presumably because he suspects a trick or a death-like unconsciousness. Then he gives Joseph permission to take the corpse.

Get the feeling that someone is trying to sell someone else a bill of Goods here?



quote: So Joseph bought a linen sheet, took him down from the cross, and wrapped him in the sheet. Then he laid him in a tomb cut out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the entrance.

We know that Joseph was wealthy (other accounts say it was his own private tomb). But the important point here is that it says he ‘took Jesus down’ not ‘he had him taken down’. Then as now, pious Jews will go out of their way to avoid touching a corpse. Custom was to either pay a non Jew or let the women do it! So either Joseph wasn’t a Jew or not a very pious Jew OR he was pretty sure it wasn’t a corpse!

On a side note, he bought a linen cloth because unlike most of the paintings you’ll have seen Jesus was crucified naked.

Also why does Mark go out of his way to tell us that Jospeh rolled a stone in front of the tomb?

quote: And Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of Jospeh were watching and saw where he was laid.

Chapter 16

When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic oils intending to go and anoint him; and very early on the Sunday morning , just after sunrise, they came to the tomb

‘And along comes Mary, Mary, Mary’. Yes it seems either someone got confused when retelling the account, or someone badly doctored the account or Jesus had a thing for girls called Mary. It was a common name but…

Also of note is the ‘aromatic oils’ bit. The kind of oils used for anointing anything were expensive. Imagine washing a body in Channel Nr5 and you’ll get an idea of the price.

Remember all the Christian stuff about holy poverty? Well as someone once said of Gandhi – “It cost me a fortune to keep him in poverty”!. Want to know where the money came from? Well there is a little known verse

: Luke Ch.8

3Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. (HIV translation)

quote:

They were wondering to themselves who would roll away the stone for them from the entrance to the tomb, when they looked up and saw that the stone, huge as it was, had been rolled back already. They went into the tomb,

Now the stone , that Joseph rolled infront of the tomb, is a huge stone that 2 Near Eastern women can’t shift? (and as Pratchett says: whole economies have been based on the lifting power of little old women dressed in black!).

And why yet again does the account stress the stone?

Maybe it is as the Christians contend just to impress upon us the majesty of God’s power….[/sarcasm]

quote: where they saw a youth sitting on the right hand side, wearing a white robe; and they were dumbfounded. But he said to them, ‘Fear nothing ; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised again; he is not here; look, there is the place where they laid him. But go give this message to his disciples and Peter: “He is going on to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you’.



OK now we get down to the real story. A youth is there waiting for them, why? Notice in this account he isn’t dressed in brilliant dazzling array nor does he have wings. He’s a boy.

And his appearance is vital to demystifying the story. I’m not going to quote reams of sources but basically his appearance tells us that there is a story behind the story. Jesus had ‘followers’ outside the crowd of apostles and hangers-on. A veritable ‘secret army’. (for those interested I suggest the works of Schonfield, who was slammed when he first wrote back in the 60’s but has now been pretty much vindicated).

Doubtful about that claim? Then have a look at Matthew 21

quote: 1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethany on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

and also

Luke 22:10-12

10He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11and say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 12He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there[/quote]

( A man carrying water? In that day…bit like saying ‘go into the town and look for a man wearing a sign saying ‘I am a terrorist’, he couldn’t have made it anymore bloody obvious).



Maybe Jesus’ secret army opened the tomb and removed the corpse, maybe they opened it and removed the living body. I DON’T know.

What I DO know is that the next bit of the account stinks.

Notice what the boy says to the women. Yep, he’s trying to pull a ‘fast one’. Maybe that’s a subjective judgement but there is another example of just such a phrase as ‘look that’s where his body was’ used in the bible.

1 Kings 8:7-9

”These poles were so long that their ends could be seen from the Holy Place in front of the inner sanctuary, but not from outside the Holy Place; and they are still there today.”

And again in 2Chron. 5:9

”These poles were so long that their ends, extending from the ark, could be seen from in front of the inner sanctuary, but not from outside the Holy Place; and they are still there today”

Yes the bloody poles could be seen but the Ark was long gone.



So what have we got?

We have an account that clearly has at least one hidden agenda. It is left unclear whether Jesus was even dead. We have his shadowy organization popping up ,opening the tomb and then trying to sell the women and us a bill of goods.

Yet even Mark doesn’t try and get us to swallow angels, the power of god and Turin shroud.

He doesn’t even go as far as to say ‘God raised him’, just simply ‘he has been raised’ (ie healed?).



So nothing paranormal in the whole account.



People, I could write reams and reams more on this but 1. I have mitres to cut and a meal to cook and 2. I hope I have made my point that even a person who doesn’t have my background can gain an awful lot just by reading the bloody book and ignoring what the Christians would like you to believe!

For those interested here’s a link to a part of Mark that the church DEMONSTRABLY tried to hide (http://tinyurl.com/yhhdv9)

*edit It is also always worth bearing in mind that the gospels were NOT written as historical accounts but with a missionary mission.

Kinda like reading Watchtower publications today.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-14-2006).]

El Coolio
2006-12-14, 18:29
tahts to long to read

Source
2006-12-14, 19:45
Long story short. Jesus was a con artist.

jackketch
2006-12-14, 19:49
quote:Originally posted by Source:

Long story short. Jesus was a con artist.



No that wasn't what i was saying. But I didn't want to get too deep inorder to keep this thread understandable for the majority.

My personal guess is a planned fulfilment of messianic prophecy (as he did with so many others.)ie he knew he was the true messiah and therefore had to 'die' and be raised again.

Source
2006-12-14, 20:10
Well it doesn't really matter, personally I don't believe in God. But if God did exist and Jesus really was his son with magical powers. I doubt he would have gotten himself nailed to a piece of wood in the first place.

jackketch
2006-12-14, 20:13
quote:Originally posted by Source:

Well it doesn't really matter, personally I don't believe in God. But if God did exist and Jesus really was his son with magical powers. I doubt he would have gotten himself nailed to a piece of wood in the first place.



If he wanted to prove that he was indeed the messiah , according to the 'rules' of the game, then yes he would have to.

Source
2006-12-14, 20:17
What rules of the game?

Are you saying that dieing was a better way of making people believe in God, even though people die every day? Instead of demonstrating his powers on a large scale and showing proof beyond a reasonable doubt too the world?

jackketch
2006-12-14, 20:51
quote:Originally posted by Source:

What rules of the game?

Are you saying that dieing was a better way of making people believe in God, even though people die every day? Instead of demonstrating his powers on a large scale and showing proof beyond a reasonable doubt too the world?



You are assuming his purpose was to make people believe in god? It wasn't. Belief in god wasn't a problem back then (infact if anything they tended to over believe, with a god for every fucking day of the year!).

If however his purpose was, as the bible says, to establish the Kingdom of God, then yes he would have needed to 'die' inorder to establish both his claim as the messiah and as the rightful king. Those, if you like, were the rules of the game.

Daz
2006-12-14, 20:52
I can see why you would choose Mark to explain the resurrection, it seems quite naturalistic and would make demystifying it easy. However, what about the mystical accounts of the resurection that are not in Mark? These are still Biblical events and would require rationalizing to fit with your theory that the bible is not mysterious at all.

jackketch
2006-12-14, 23:26
quote:Originally posted by Daz:

I can see why you would choose Mark to explain the resurrection, it seems quite naturalistic and would make demystifying it easy. However, what about the mystical accounts of the resurection that are not in Mark? These are still Biblical events and would require rationalizing to fit with your theory that the bible is not mysterious at all.



Like I said , my primary decision to use Mark was 1. because it is short. Each of my interpolations has had literally dozens of books written about them and I *do* have a life outside totse...I think...maybe...perhaps.

2.with the notable exception of John, the other accounts are to a large degree embellishments of Mark's. Some of these embellishments give us further vital clues to the real story and others are indeed more 'fairy tale' like. However as so often in the bible the 'fairy tale' bits are also important as they often express truths that upon first reading are not self evident, at least not to modern 'rational' man.

Source
2006-12-14, 23:31
quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



You are assuming his purpose was to make people believe in god? It wasn't. Belief in god wasn't a problem back then (infact if anything they tended to over believe, with a god for every fucking day of the year!).

If however his purpose was, as the bible says, to establish the Kingdom of God, then yes he would have needed to 'die' inorder to establish both his claim as the messiah and as the rightful king. Those, if you like, were the rules of the game.

Forgive my lack of....understanding, but what exactly is the Kingdom of God? And why was it necessary for him to 'die' in order to establish this? What exactly has changed since the death of Christ?

Because if it was about sin...I don't think it worked.

jackketch
2006-12-14, 23:40
quote:Originally posted by Source:

Forgive my lack of....understanding, but what exactly is the Kingdom of God? And why was it necessary for him to 'die' in order to establish this? What exactly has changed since the death of Christ?

Because if it was about sin...I don't think it worked.



The 'kingdom of god' has two meanings in the NT. One was the setting up of a theocracy with the messiah as the rightful king of Israel as its secular and spiritual head. The other was the 'moral' state required to be a 'citizen' of this 'kingdom'.

If you imagine the first christians as an Al Qaeda cell intent on driving the Romans out of their 'Holy Land' and setting up an Islamic Fundamentalist state then you've just about got it.

madamwench
2006-12-14, 23:42
theres alot more than 2 meanings http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=190494

for kicks http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Daz
2006-12-15, 11:17
quote:Some of these embellishments give us further vital clues to the real story and others are indeed more 'fairy tale' like. However as so often in the bible the 'fairy tale' bits are also important as they often express truths that upon first reading are not self evident, at least not to modern 'rational' man.



So it is fine to pick and choose what part of the bible is supposed to be fairy tale-like with a non self-evident meaning such as a complex metaphor or allusion and which parts are supposed to be quite literal. Well of course that would demystify the bible, it would demystify the Lord of the Rings aswell though.

Hexadecimal
2006-12-15, 22:14
quote:Originally posted by Daz:

So it is fine to pick and choose what part of the bible is supposed to be fairy tale-like with a non self-evident meaning such as a complex metaphor or allusion and which parts are supposed to be quite literal. Well of course that would demystify the bible, it would demystify the Lord of the Rings aswell though.

You're still looking at it like it's supposed to be some flawless religious text. It doesn't matter which parts were supposed to sound mystical or not - it's which parts are plagiarized, which parts are original. After you know that, all you need to accurately know is what the words really mean.

AnAsTaSiO
2006-12-16, 03:16
quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

You're still looking at it like it's supposed to be some flawless religious text. It doesn't matter which parts were supposed to sound mystical or not - it's which parts are plagiarized, which parts are original. After you know that, all you need to accurately know is what the words really mean.

The problem is that most Christians do look at it like a FLAWLESS RELIGIOUS TEXT.

Daz
2006-12-17, 03:52
quote:You're still looking at it like it's supposed to be some flawless religious text. It doesn't matter which parts were supposed to sound mystical or not - it's which parts are plagiarized, which parts are original. After you know that, all you need to accurately know is what the words really mean.



Who decides which parts are original? who decides what the words mean? Why bother even having non-original, non-useful scripture still in the bible - why not just edit it down to the 'real' parts...

redzed
2006-12-17, 21:03
quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

*edit It is also always worth bearing in mind that the gospels were NOT written as historical accounts but with a missionary mission.

Kinda like reading Watchtower publications today.



Yes why believe the version initiated and promoted by an organisation(Roman Catholic) that grew out of the very government responsible for the execution, and later(for the next 1500years) the very organisation that admits to responsibility for millions of executions of those it labelled heretics!

The biblical stories of Jesus resurection have IMHO been doctored to parallel the existing religious beliefs of the pagans(e.g. Mithra and the numerous other human/divine sons of god born of a virgin and crucified/executed to save the people) as a means of social control by a megalomaniac(Constantine) who was fighting a war against a powerful rival for control of Rome. The religion invented by Constantine and his collaborators sought to unify the beliefs of enough people to allow him to gain control, which he did. The history from there on is freely available and shows that whilst Constantine remained a pagan he directly influenced the doctrines of the fledgling RC church and the content of the bible.

One only has to compare the differing stories told in the four canonical gospels of the resurection to see that they contradict each other in ways that are impossible to resolve, militating against any validity of the accuracy of those accounts.

It is all to clear to any person who reads the bible, with an open mind, that there are too many contradictions to accept the inerrant, literalist interpretations. However, it is equally important, to my mind, that any interested person reads the bible for themself without the preconceived ideas foisted by organised religion. It is not the literal interpretation that is important, rather the thoughts that are inspired by seeking to understand what it is the authors were trying to communicate via myth and metaphor; and one wonders if this was necessary because as Paul says there would come a time when those of vested interests would seek to distort the teachings of Jesus into something entirely different. Much like the 'JW's and Watchtower' and countless other RC inspired cults do today.

IMHO the 'truth' is more likely to be garnered from the other accounts rejected by the RC's, the ones written by the people they murdered in an effort to shut them up - such as the gnostic gospels of the Nag Hammadi Library and other extra biblical accounts such as:

"The Lost Years of Jesus:

The Life of Saint Issa"

Translation by Notovitch http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

Congrats to the OP on an intelligent and thought provoking thread.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)