• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus Resurrection

joelr

Well-Known Member
the "resurrected in 3 days" originated with the sun worship:

Hence, a "winter solstice" birth as asserted for a number of gods would not necessarily be celebrated on those exact days or even on the more commonly accepted date of December 25th, which signifies the end of a three-day period of the solstice—meaning "sun stands still"—as perceived in ancient times. In this regard, the winter-solstice birthday of the Greek sun and wine god Dionysus was originally recognized in early January but was eventually placed on December 25th, as related by the ancient Latin writer Macrobius (4th cent. ad/ce). Regardless, the effect is the same: The winter sun god is born around this time, when the day begins to become longer than the night.


Much of religion is related to ancient sun worship-

Jesus Christ as the Sun God throughout History


Astrotheology of the Ancients


Dupuis also addresses the history of the contention for Christian sun worship:

"We are not the only ones, nor the first, who have this idea of the religion of the Christians. Their apologist Tertullian, agrees, that from the earliest days of the introduction of this religion in the West, the more enlightened men, who had examined into it, pronounced it to be merely a sect of the Mithraic religion, and that the God of the Christians like that of the Persians, was the Sun. In Christianism there were sundry practices remarked, which betrayed that origin; the Christians never said their prayers, without facing the East, or that part of the World, whence the sun rises. All their temples, or all their religious meeting houses were anciently facing the rising Sun. Their holy days in each week had reference to the day of the Sun, called Sunday, or the day of the Lord Sun.... All these practices derived their origin from the very nature of their religion." (Dupuis, 266.)


so "3 days" is a dead giveaway.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
Depends what you are talking about.
Paul did claim hallucinations (revelations) along with knowledge of some scripture.

So Paul had hallucinations, and this hallucination told him that Jesus was crusified, burried, that had a brother named James, that he had bread And wine with his disciples de night before his death etc?

Is that your view?

But the idea is that it's all mythology same as any other. How do you think the gospels of Hercules came about? Same thing.

In fact I don't know, how did hercles came to be?

In your view, was Jesus fully mythical or just the supernatural parts are mythical?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I. I do not believe "brother" meant actual brother but like "we are brothers in the lord".

To me it is clear that Paul is talking about a literal brother, Paul is clearly excusing the apostles, being James the only one with the adjective "brother"
After three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother” (vv. 18–19).

And what about the authors of the gospels who also mention James and other brothers?

Where they also using the term brother in symbolic way? Is that your view?

I don' completely back the celestial Jesus idea

That is my point, you don't have a clear view on what happened,
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
We reject mostly the same documents as you.
Do you believe the gospel of Hercules? No, ok so it's common sense.
If we find 100 more gospels of Hercules will that matter? You talk about it like it's normal to believe silly tales of miracles and supernatural happenings?

Where did the myth come from?

start here:
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier
]
Ok so just to be clear, no amount of historical evidence would convinve you that the resurrection is true?


Yes if any other miracle from Hercules (or someone else) has an equivalent amount of evidence I would accept that miracle, or atleast I would admit that there is good evidence in support of that miracle.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member

Have you seen dragon Ball Z? (The cartoon)? There is a God "Kami" who was born from a virgin, had 12 disciples, resurected, came to Earth as a human, was 3 individuals in one as in the trinity etc.

Would you say that the show was inspired in the gospels?....anyone who has seen the cartoon would laugh at this idea because the parales are just a consecuence of cherry picking, the parales occured in a different context , and if you consider the details, things become different......the same is true with the parales between jesus and the Egyptian gods.

For example hours was born because his mother had sex with a dead man who didn't had a penis (he had a fish instead ).......you might say that it is a virgin birth, but it is in no way analogous to the gospels say about Jesus and his birth


...

If Christians where just guys who followed a celestial individual, why don't we have any ancient contemporary source that refers to Christians as a group that follows a celestial individual?

After all, according to Richard Career, this was not suppose to be a secret, early Christians openly admitted and knew that Jesus has never existed on Earth. .....any ancient historian like Josephus or tacitus could have talked to chistians, and they would have told them that Jesus is not and has never being a person who lived on Earth.

BTW, did the authors of the gospels knew that Jesus was not a historical figure?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
e.

Apostles are myth. Church fathers choose to have blind faith, same as all religious leaders in all religions across time.
Extra biblical sources are proven forgery or simply mention Christians who follow the gospel. No outside mention of Jesus.
No matter how hard you spin these lies they don't become true.

Ok just to be clear, people like peter, John, Paul, James etc where also myths? They did not existed as historical person's ether ? Is that your view?

What about the other characters in the gospels like Pilates,Caefas, John the Baptist etc. Are they also mythical characters?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
These are all things that a "celestial being" could have not done.
Why not? Myths had celestial beings being born, living, dying, occasionally returning, etc.

I mean how do you burry someone who lives in heaven? Was the tomb also part of heaven?
Are there streets of gold in heaven? Dig under the street.

1 should we reject all ancient documents that where not written by eyewitnesses?
Only if they're claiming to be eyewitness accounts. If they're just stories, it doesn't matter.

2 was Luke lying? Or Was he misinformed? What is your view?
Both? Neither? Can't go back in time to ask. I only know it's unlikely accurate statements were made.

3 if the resurrection is a mtyh, who invented that myth? Paul, Peter, the Vatican? The church fathers? .....under your view who/when was the myth invented?
The people who needed "street cred" when preaching. A Messiah who can't even last a year when many religious founders/teachers lasted for decades is just sad.

Resurrection extends the teacher's importance a bit.

But Jesus had to "return to heaven" because too many people were probably asking to go see him instead of the apostles.

4 if we ever find a document written by an eye witness (maybe the Q gospel) would that make a difference?
Being an eyewitness doesn't make you reliable. People will say anything. Trump says ISIS is all throughout a caravan of Hondurans. He has no evidence. People believe him anyway.

what if we find 2,3,8, or 100 aditional documents written by eyewitnesses?
Would depend on what they're claiming? Would you accept 100 eyewitness accounts that said Jesus was actually some homeless guy named Jake who went around peeing himself and ranting about God before being executed by Romans? I mean, per the stories, Jesus was executed thanks to EYEWITNESSES. They accused him of terrorist-like statements and actions and he was executed. As there were EYEWITNESSES, do you believe them? If not, why not?

Would you say that the show was inspired in the gospels?....anyone who has seen the cartoon would laugh at this idea because the parales are just a consecuence of cherry picking, the parales occured in a different context , and if you consider the details, things become different......the same is true with the parales between jesus and the Egyptian gods.
You mean like forcing Jesus to sound like a cross between Moses and Elijah? Aren't they just cherry picking OT stories to make a new character? Besides, in the garden, doesn't Jesus go Super Saiyan? :)

You have a character who lights up to show divine power. Seems legit.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Why not? Myths had celestial beings being born, living, dying, occasionally returning, etc.

Paul talks about A guy who has brothers on Earth, was born from a mother, who descended from David, who was buried etc.

These sound like someone who lived on earth

. I only know it's unlikely accurate statements were made.
Why?

Being an eyewitness doesn't make you reliable. People will say anything. Trump says ISIS is all throughout a caravan of Hondurans. He has no evidence. People believe him anyway.
Ok so no amount of historical evidence will convince you that the resurrection happened?


EYEWITNESSES, do you believe them? If not, why not?
I don't understand the question

You mean like forcing Jesus to sound like a cross between Moses and Elijah? Aren't they just cherry picking OT stories to make a new character? Besides, in the garden, doesn't Jesus go Super Saiyan? :)
The point that I made is that one can find parales between 2 different independent characters, if you cherry pick and ignore the context.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
So Paul had hallucinations, and this hallucination told him that Jesus was crusified, burried, that had a brother named James, that he had bread And wine with his disciples de night before his death etc?

Is that your view?

This isn't about my view.
Paul mentions revelations (hallucinations) and scripture as his source of knowledge.



In fact I don't know, how did hercles came to be?

In your view, was Jesus fully mythical or just the supernatural parts are mythical?

Not my view. The history field considers Jesus to have been a man. Richard Carrier has more recently shown that Jesus is myth. He exposes the false assumptions held by the field.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
To me it is clear that Paul is talking about a literal brother, Paul is clearly excusing the apostles, being James the only one with the adjective "brother"


And what about the authors of the gospels who also mention James and other brothers?

Where they also using the term brother in symbolic way? Is that your view?
The gospels are all re-writes of Mark.


As to Paul and brothers I believe Richard Carrier has proven his point.
Again, not my opinion, I'm only listening to Ph.D biblical historians. Not church apologists.

Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord • Richard Carrier

"Paul also never says Jesus had biological brothers. Brothers by birth or blood appear nowhere in Paul’s letters. He only knows of cultic brothers of the Lord: all baptized Christians, he says, are the adopted sons of God just like Jesus, and therefore Jesus is “the firstborn of many brethren” (OHJ, p. 108). In other words, all baptized Christians are for Paul brothers of the Lord, and in fact the only reason Christians are brothers of each other, is that they are all brothers of Jesus. Paul is never aware he needs to distinguish anyone as a brother of Jesus in any different kind of way. And indeed the only two times he uses the full phrase “brother of the Lord” (instead of its periphrasis “brother”), he needs to draw a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians"
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Ok so just to be clear, no amount of historical evidence would convinve you that the resurrection is true?


Yes if any other miracle from Hercules (or someone else) has an equivalent amount of evidence I would accept that miracle, or atleast I would admit that there is good evidence in support of that miracle.


The point is the evidence for Jesus is zero.

this is a non-bias look at ALL evidence.


As to the gospels,
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Have you seen dragon Ball Z? (The cartoon)? There is a God "Kami" who was born from a virgin, had 12 disciples, resurected, came to Earth as a human, was 3 individuals in one as in the trinity etc.

Would you say that the show was inspired in the gospels?....anyone who has seen the cartoon would laugh at this idea because the parales are just a consecuence of cherry picking, the parales occured in a different context , and if you consider the details, things become different......the same is true with the parales between jesus and the Egyptian gods.

For example hours was born because his mother had sex with a dead man who didn't had a penis (he had a fish instead ).......you might say that it is a virgin birth, but it is in no way analogous to the gospels say about Jesus and his birth


...

If Christians where just guys who followed a celestial individual, why don't we have any ancient contemporary source that refers to Christians as a group that follows a celestial individual?

After all, according to Richard Career, this was not suppose to be a secret, early Christians openly admitted and knew that Jesus has never existed on Earth. .....any ancient historian like Josephus or tacitus could have talked to chistians, and they would have told them that Jesus is not and has never being a person who lived on Earth.

BTW, did the authors of the gospels knew that Jesus was not a historical figure?

The Kami character is simply following mythological archetypes, same as Jesus.

After the canon was formed all other interpretations of Jesus were destroyed so your request for heretical information is odd. The church would not have allowed those writings to survive.

All of the information from the time of Jesus is non-existant.

Please forget about the celestial Jesus, I don't know why this is still a subject. At this point it's a red herring.

Your lack of insight on virgin birth is stunning:

The deep anxiety of Christians is often revealed in their desperation to convince themselves they aren’t just new fangled pagans who stole everything from other religions. The virgin birth is a classic example, and the fact-challenged ill-logic of trying to deny it is best represented by the otherwise seemingly smooth and authoritative article Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism? by Jon Sorensen, published in 2013 at Catholic Answers (obviously).

Another example, of course, is the dying-and-rising God mytheme, which I may treat more acutely in the future, but I’ve already demonstrated it was not only pagan, but fashionable among pagans by the time the Jews decided they wanted one of their own (see On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 45-47, 56-58, 98-100, 105-06, 168-73, 225-29). Derreck Bennett’s Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods is also a good effort at trying to catalog the same point, although I think there are errors in Bennett’s article as well, and the task of fixing them will benefit from examining the parallel case of the same debate over where the idea of a virgin birth came from.
continue at:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11161
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Have you seen dragon Ball Z? (The cartoon)? There is a God "Kami" who was born from a virgin, had 12 disciples, resurected, came to Earth as a human, was 3 individuals in one as in the trinity etc.

Would you say that the show was inspired in the gospels?....anyone who has seen the cartoon would laugh at this idea because the parales are just a consecuence of cherry picking, the parales occured in a different context , and if you consider the details, things become different......the same is true with the parales between jesus and the Egyptian gods.

For example hours was born because his mother had sex with a dead man who didn't had a penis (he had a fish instead ).......you might say that it is a virgin birth, but it is in no way analogous to the gospels say about Jesus and his birth


...

I

BTW, did the authors of the gospels knew that Jesus was not a historical figure?


It's not about the differences, all savior god religions had differences. The point is that they died and rose for the members.
Your points about myth comparisons show you did not even read the article.

If you watch the Carrier video you can see the gospel writers were following all sorts of mythic structure to the T. So yes, they were writing myth. Same as the 1000s of other well crafted myths throughout history.

Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth. In my article on virgin births, I also mentioned this about resurrected gods, with citations of all the evidence I already published under peer review in On the Historicity of Jesus (pp. 45-47, 56-58, 98-100, 105-06, 168-73, 225-29). I also list and discuss a lot of the evidence and theology of resurrection in the world Christianity was born from and in full knowledge of—both Jewish and Pagan—in Not the Impossible Faith (Chapter 3). But on my blog, in the same paragraph, I also mentioned Derreck Bennett’s article, “Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods,” as making a start on showing this. Though I said I felt there were some errors in that, and that I’d write about this myself someday to shore up the facts and get them as right as possible, the same way I did for the virgin birth concept.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Ok just to be clear, people like peter, John, Paul, James etc where also myths? They did not existed as historical person's ether ? Is that your view?

What about the other characters in the gospels like Pilates,Caefas, John the Baptist etc. Are they also mythical characters?


The Greek scripture starts out wih Kata which is Greek for "as told to me by".
I've already gave sources and everything needed in earlier posts so if you want more info on that go back a few pages.
So the gospels are not even written by the apostles.

If you bother to watch the Carrier video on why the gospels are myth all of your questions would be answered.
It is complete fan-fiction, the mythic structure and repeats of historical mistakes copied into each gospel, as well as many other devices, leave zero doubt that the gospels are no different than any mystery religion.
Plus the myths are all found in earlier religions and the Persian concepts of heaven, hell, Satan, good vs evil and a savior demigod only appear AFTER the Persian invasion.

The Persian cult is the earliest known sources of these concepts.


go to 21:50
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Now let me elaborate on evidence that the New Testament referenced the Old Testament and did not get there content from pagan sources. Ill use the "third day" as an example, since thats refered to for inanna.

Jonah 1:17 which is OT, says "Now the Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."

Mathew 12:40, NT says "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

You see that? The NT did not get the three days from barrowing from inanna, they got it from jonah. Theres another too.

Hosea 6:2, OT says "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence."

A

Ok, refute this point.

In a nutshell,
at 21:50 we see the origins of Satan, afterlife, good vs evil from the Persians. As well as many other religious concepts found in Christianity.

at 37:56 all of that stuff has been added into the OT which is Christianity right there.

the OT stole from older myths and the basic Jesus myth was assembled from the OT. Adding other elements from mystery religions. But it's all right there.

At 37:10 is the source of Philo talking about a pre-existing Jewish angel - Jesus, who was the firstborn son of god, agent of creation and such.


At 41:20 is where the Christians took Jesus and added the savior messiah myths to him.

 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Paul was talking about a Jesus who was burried, crusified, had brothers, was born from a woman who descended from David, ate bread, drink wine etc. These are all things that a "celestial being" could have not done.

I mean how do you burry someone who lives in heaven? Was the tomb also part of heaven?


I was wrong.
The "celestial" beliefs were more than you are supposing. They believed there were temples, dirt, thrones etc...in the lower heavens.
There is presedence from earlier mystery religions and evidence from Ascension of Isiah that give some cred to the celestial Jesus idea.

41:55 he begins the evidence.
It's obviously not proven as such but the evidence is stronger than I thought.

Brothers of the Lord = baptized Christians
Sperm of David = Divine manufactured
Born of a woman - Paul says it's an allegory
 
Last edited:
Uh, what point?
First who cares about how many days it takes for a resurrection. A writer can make it be any amount of days and it's still the resurrection that's the important piece of mythology?

I wanna thank you for debating with me. Because through you im learning more bits of information. Your helping my view become stronger and more informed. Thank you.

I found out something interesting about the reason of the 3 days. Its not arbitrary.

"For three days after death the soul hovers over the body intending to reenter it." (Lev. Rabbah 18:1)" got it from here https://reformjudaism.org/glimpses-afterlife

So, there was a tradition that believed the person was not truly dead unless dead for 3 days. So, God kept Jesus dead for 3 days in order to banish any doubt he was truly dead.


Anyway, - How do you know the OT didn't take the "3 days" idea from Inana being it's an ancient Sumerian text?

By golly im glad you asked that question, i was hoping you would and you did. You are just on top of things arent you? Ok, heres why i dont believe the OT got the 3 days from innana.

First reason because jonah does not reference innana but speaks as its own story.

Second reason is that jonah and the OT are critical of pagan gods. In fact, the OT directly criticized inanna. It dont say "inanna", it says queen of heaven, which that is another name for inanna. and mentions tammuz her husband

Jonah was a hebrew servent of God (Yahweh), not inanna. Source here jonah 1:1-2 and verse 9. Jonah's shipmates called on other gods, verse 5.

Jonah was told to preach against ninivah's wickedness. Ninivah was a important centre for the worship of ishtar or inanna. Source here Nineveh < click on ishtar and it reveals its another name for inanna.

Here is the passage in the OT that DIRECTLY is critical of inanna or as shes also called, queen of heaven.

Jeremiah 7:18 " the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17 "We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah"

Ezekiel 8:14 "Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord, and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz. He said to me, “Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this.”

Tammuz was another name for dumuzi and he was inannas husband. Source here: Tammuz | Mesopotamian god and in the same innana tablet along with her being called queen of heaven and her husband dumuzi, thats all mentioned there too: Inana's descent to the nether world: translation

Even if the OT made it up, it's clear evidence that the authors of he gospels wrote Jesus being resurrected in 3 days because the OT said so. That makes it look like a fulfilled prophecy which is what the whole thing is about.

It dont just LOOK like a fullfilled prophesy, IT IS.

The OT writers are exposed to pagan savior god myths. So they start writing it into the OT. They use 3 days because Inanna was 3 days then later when writing the actual resurrection story they use 3 days to be consistent.

I gave you proof the NT got 3 days from Jonah. I gave you more proof Jonah and other OT passages wer critical of inanna. Thus, theres no rational reason the OT would steel 3 days from inanna.

I will work on the other sections of your post in a bit.
 
I would think the OT authors would use something besides 3 days but that is the original mythology of the sun worshipers. Even before Inana. The sun goes to it's lowest point on Dec22? and in 3 days it begins to rise up higher each day.
"Son" of god mythology probably dates back to this 3 day resurrection of the sun and the 12 is the zodiac. Dec 25 the sun begins going higher each day.

That looks like a pile of mess. Ezekiel 8:16, verse right after tammuz says thus

"He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east."

So, he just finished being critical of tammuz, then said ezekiel would see more detestable things. Then showed him the sun worshipers. This is clear cut proof that Yahweh was not the sun! Theres multiple other passages that make this clear as well.

The myths started with astromythology and sun worship. The death and resurrection of the sun. Then cultures started making up actual gods who did it.

No, Yahweh, the hebrew God of the OT never started out as the sun. He was always the CREATOR of the sun.

the "resurrected in 3 days" originated with the sun worship:

Hence, a "winter solstice" birth as asserted for a number of gods would not necessarily be celebrated on those exact days or even on the more commonly accepted date of December 25th, which signifies the end of a three-day period of the solstice—meaning "sun stands still"—as perceived in ancient times. In this regard, the winter-solstice birthday of the Greek sun and wine god Dionysus was originally recognized in early January but was eventually placed on December 25th, as related by the ancient Latin writer Macrobius (4th cent. ad/ce). Regardless, the effect is the same: The winter sun god is born around this time, when the day begins to become longer than the night.


Much of religion is related to ancient sun worship-

Jesus Christ as the Sun God throughout History


Astrotheology of the Ancients


Dupuis also addresses the history of the contention for Christian sun worship:

"We are not the only ones, nor the first, who have this idea of the religion of the Christians. Their apologist Tertullian, agrees, that from the earliest days of the introduction of this religion in the West, the more enlightened men, who had examined into it, pronounced it to be merely a sect of the Mithraic religion, and that the God of the Christians like that of the Persians, was the Sun. In Christianism there were sundry practices remarked, which betrayed that origin; the Christians never said their prayers, without facing the East, or that part of the World, whence the sun rises. All their temples, or all their religious meeting houses were anciently facing the rising Sun. Their holy days in each week had reference to the day of the Sun, called Sunday, or the day of the Lord Sun.... All these practices derived their origin from the very nature of their religion." (Dupuis, 266.)


so "3 days" is a dead giveaway.

Thats an utter mess and is no dead give away at all.

Christians simply do not worship the sun, nor do Jews, nor does the OT or NT condone or imply in anyway, shape or form sun worship. Period. This is completely proven from the OT and NT that God is creator of the sun and is NOT his own creation.

I want DIRECT proof from your sources for what you are saying here.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Paul talks about A guy who has brothers on Earth, was born from a mother, who descended from David, who was buried etc.

These sound like someone who lived on earth


Why?


Ok so no amount of historical evidence will convince you that the resurrection happened?



I don't understand the question


The point that I made is that one can find parales between 2 different independent characters, if you cherry pick and ignore the context.
It appears you are convinced that the story really happened opposed by those that are convinced that it's a story. How is it all going to end?
 
Top