Yep, no respect at all for scholars. Any questions?


TC, there are almost 30 passages in the LXX that use this three days motif to indicate that God will be victorious on the third day. There are some very important ones in fact:

a) On the third day God was prophesized to raise up his people from affliction (Hos. 6:2)
b) After three days God makes a covenant with Israel (Ex. 19:11, 16)
c) On the third day Abraham offered Isaac (Gen. 22:4)
d) On the third day the kingdom was divided (I Kings 12:24)
e) On the third day King Hezekiah was healed (2 Kings 20:5, 8)

The motif itself is not new. What might be new with this document is the possibility that it refers to a "prince of princes" which has a messianic or anti-messianic title. It could be that after the three days the "prince of princes" will be raised, descended, respond with might, defeated, depart with the righteous, etc. We can only guess what it means.

But, let's turn this on the other foot. If it means that the "prince of princes" will be raised, then your view has effectively been falsified. Your whole notion is that Jesus was invented in Egypt by some pagan Jews, and here we have a document which shows a gradual evolution of the messiah figure within the context of Judaism.

Are you willing to acknowledge that this text falsifies your beliefs? (Btw, I'm sure that if this is the only compromise that you had to make, you would certainly make it as long as it made Jesus unhistorical. This gets back to my point that for the "Jesus did not exist" crowd it is not a particular thesis that they are attached to, they just don't like the idea that Jesus of Nazareth existed. They could care less about everything they throw on the wall and hope it sticks. This is a true sign of shoddy scholarship)


Well, this is another topic, but this is a very minor held position. It seems that the argument you cited plays off a fundamentalist reading of the Gospels. Paul wrote his epistle probably 25-30 years before the Gospels were written. In addition, the Gospels do not indicate when and where James became converted. Was it during the ministry of Jesus, was it at his death and resurrection, we just do not know.

As for verses 3-11 being an interpolation, that's a huge chuck of text which shows no signs of being interpolated outside the hopes and dreams of those who simply do not like what it says. However, if you want to discuss this indepth I can certainly give the evidence for it.

Btw, why is it that you always quote incomplete evidence and very extreme opinions when it says what you want it to say, but ignore complete evidence and generally agreed opinions when it says what you don't want it to say? That's wacky to me.

First of all, I abbreviated the three days motif to encompass what we were talking about, I didn't think it needed to be repeated, but of course, this is one of your tactics to attempt to deflect and cause uncertainty where there was none.

Second, your interpretation is just one. I see it more as though this was a common mythical motif throughout the cultures of the Mediterranean, once again establishing the mixing of cultural ideals. "The Jews" were not in a vacuum and there is nothing original about the resurrection, its a common borrowed MYTHICAL motif. Nice try.

Third, I've already noted this is a minority position, so thanks for re-stating what has already been admitted. Its wacky to you because the orthodox supports your belief, there's nothing complete about the actual evidence of your position at all except that its had centuries to impress itself on the cultural mind. It wouldn't be the minority position if the majority of scholars (most of whom are Christian or at least religious) didn't oppose it. Then you demonize the position as wacky and conspiratorial as opposed to minority to gain the popular appeal. To you, popularity = probability.

We are so used to everything being done for impression I can see the attraction of Doceticism. A deity acts like something is happening to create an impression. But if re-birth is human potnetial, what good is it to fake it?

As i understand it, the Christ was inner unity and this inner unity was sacrificed to become the plurality of Man. It is the voluntary devolution of being. Re-birth is the change from plurality into inner unity.

Jesus regained what was sacrificed but the process requires the conscious experience of the human condition and transformation of human suffering through conscious awareness culminating in re-birth. This opened the path for others to follow.

Oh, look, here's a debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan on the resurrection in which the main thrust of Gary's position is that there is no evidence of a resurrection prior to Jesus. Didn't he know about Corinthians? Didn't he know Paul alludes to it? This is why the find is significant. It may not prove Jesus didn't exist, but it could prove the idea was known before Christ. There is no denying this has been one of the cornerstone arguments. I like how he won't accept archeological evidence, but when pressed for the "originals" of the New Testament, these people always tell you how hard it is to find ancient documentation. So, first century Biblical gets a pass, earlier century non-Biblical, circumstantial evidence not enough. Certainly, belief structures have no influence on that objectivity.

YouTube - Gary Habermas Debates Skeptic Tim Callahan pt1

Sorry for the misunderstanding.


The three days probably stems from the dark moon when the moon passes between the earth and sun and is not very visible for that period. This period averages about 3 days, and when the new moon becomes visible it is as if it is resurrected or becomes born again. This view doesn't require the Jews to have largely depended on pagan myths for their scriptures. That would be like saying that our understanding of evolution depends on what the ancient philosophers Anaximander, Xenophanes, Lucretius taught about evolution.


TC, this is crazy stuff. But, we all like you anyway.

Certainly.



That is one possible explanation. Another is that at the solstices, the Sun appears not to move for three days in the horizon as the Earth tilts back the other way. Another was the common belief that a body was not "dead" until after three days of non-movement to avoid burying someone alive. Three was also the number given to the stages of a man's mortal life (babe, adult, old age, i.e., Riddle of the Sphinx) and also a mystical life (birth, death, rebirth). But, what is not in question, is that the number three was seen as significant across a broad array of cultures, and that it is woven into the Christ myth does not constitute something "original". Its a common mythical motif. This suggests, the propensity that this is an "historical" miracle is less likely than it was a recognizable way for the author to identify his "hero" as divine for his intended audience.


Thanks for speaking for everybody, would you have that list so I can tell them all "thank you"? So, when presented with the basis that "popularity = probability" you dismiss it with a snide remark? When tasked with the fact the "popularity" in question were believing Christians when they entered this field and remain so to this day is a pronounced bias, you try to underplay it? I just love how all this "crazy talk" makes you feel compelled to come out and combat it. Must not be that "crazy". I certainly don't feel a need to crash "Bigfoot" discussions to tell them how "crazy" they are.

-TC

Ah, I like the moon theory better. Nothing like getting a new moon every month.


You can't separate the way they thought of the world from the way they interpreted historical facts. You can't separate our way from seeing the world from the way we interpret historical facts. So, as semi-historians, each of us must distinguish historical fact from their paradigms by looking for certain details in their writings (e.g., embarrassing details, historical verified information from multiple sources, etc.).


If the scholars I'm referring to were fundamentalist, then I would certainly agree with you. But, they are not. They are reputable scholars just approaching the subject matter as objectively as possible.


Nah. I was bored.

After reading Joseph Campbell, it was apparent to me that the story of Jesus (virgin birth, crucifiction, resurrection, etc) was central to many cultures and religions previous to Jesus' life. I'm not sure if that adds credence to the Gospel's account or if it's a story that repeats itself in human history over and over again for a purpose. Either way, it seems to be a theme that is central to man's search for God. Could it be that the world is full of symbols, nothing but a metaphor for some reality we're seeking?

In ACIM, Jesus refers to himself an as "idea" or "symbol" (of perfect love), but then it also says that we ourselves are also "ideas" (obviously a concept most of us resist). .......but that's another topic.


In a section of ACIM called "A Clarification of Terms:"