Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the article you gave me also shows the different views of scholars. Like some say peter had someone write it for him.

But, someone obviously wrote it who claimed to be a witness.

those claims were refuted. You stopped reading when you saw what you wanted to see.

 

[Jollybear]

For the same reason other religious zealots made up their stories. It is a pathway to power. It allows people to deal with their personal demons. There are quite a few reasons, most of which would not appeal to you or me.

Power huh? It appears he had power being a Jew and it was more SAFER for him on top of it.

Why leave that SAFE power for lesser UNSAFE power?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Power huh? It appears he had power being a Jew and it was more SAFER for him on top of it.

Why leave that SAFE power for lesser UNSAFE power?

He had rather limited power, and that was only one possibility out of many. His rantings about sex and his end of the world beliefs serve as evidence that he was not all their mentally.

 

[Jollybear]

those claims were refuted. You stopped reading when you saw what you wanted to see.

Actually, no, they wer not refuted, theres simply various opinions by scholars for various reasons to the authorship of peters epistles.

In anycase, if it was written by petter, or petter had someone write it for him, or if a disciple of peter later on after his death wrote it, then either way, the content would be peters thoughts.

 

[Jollybear]

He had rather limited power, and that was only one possibility out of many. His rantings about sex and his end of the world beliefs serve as evidence that he was not all their mentally.

Ok...power is one possibility....what could be another possible motive?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, no, they wer not refuted, theres simply various opinions by scholars for various reasons to the authorship of peters epistles.

In anycase, if it was written by petter, or petter had someone write it for him, or if a disciple of peter later on after his death wrote it, then either way, the content would be peters thoughts.

They were, read the article again. Peter was long dead by the time that was written.

You are too ready to believe the myths of the Bible.

Here is a test question to see if you are a serious and honest student of the Bible:

Can you name any failed prophecies in the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok...power is one possibility....what could be another possible motive?

As I said it could help him deal with his inner problems. His hatred of homosexuality, not a teaching of Jesus, tells us he may have been a latent homosexual.

 

[joelr]

Ok, so, you agree they did not know it was a lie. Good. So then, how do you explain them claiming to be witnesses to the resurrection?

How do I explain a 2000 year old tale of supernatural happenings? Are you serious right now? That question kind of answers itself but to pretend like there is any reason to believe one of the dozens of demigod myths from the Middle East - they actually didn't claim that, someone else said they claimed that.
The gospels start with the greek euaggelion (gospel), kata (according to) which is how Greek writers at the time would say "as told to me by this guy".

Ok, so, the witnesses dying, how do you explain that?

People in one religion kill people in other religions all over the place in antiquity.
People kneeled and refused to denounce Mercury and were beheaded.
People in a cult in the US Midwest all killed THEMSELVES so they could board a ufo that their savior was riding on near Saturn.
Refusing to denounce your savior god and being killed is a standard part of history as we know it. Every religion, philosophy, whatever. It show how deep people will believe things.

We know for a fact that people were willing to die for gods and symbols that we now know were fiction. So that proves that it doesn't mean the movement has any reality to it's mythology.

Not by everyone. Just like today, not by everyone.

Not like today at all. We are past the age of enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the spread of reading, writing and having access to books that teach history, philosophy etc...
The common person had no knowledge of reality, to them believing in a supernatural entity was like how we now believe in other galaxies.
People consulted the church for truth. After 3AD heretics were killed off.

Ah, witnesses, witnesses.

Yes witnesses. Do they validate the reality of the ufo savior in his ufo flying over Saturn?

I looked into those dying and rising savior gods and there vague at most and even the best examples are not any comparison. You cant just read a websites reconstruction or explaining it. You gotta look at the data.

That's a lie or you didn't look to current scholarship.
This is a nice summary and it's sourced well:
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

If you want more data it's there, you can't complain about data as if there is no data. Carrier has a 700 page book with meticulous sources, all the data you would ever need is there. So you can't attack it from that angle.
also Ad-homs on Carrier don't mean much either.
The savior messiah thing was all the rage before Jesus.
The Jews didnt' even have an afterlife or heaven/hell until after the Persian invasion.
Oddly enough the Persion religion did have all that heaven, hell, bad vs good in a cosmic battle and a savior god to forgive your sins.
In the OT we see that stuff emerge after the Jews regained their freedom.

Like i said, THE DATA. You got data for that? I dont just want a website saying it, unless the website quotes raw data references.

It's not a website it's a blog with essays from a Ph.D. in biblical history and is sourced. If you want to go deeo you'll have to get his book or simply write him on Facebook with questions. He answered mine. I was skeptical about the angel named Jesus who was "firstborn son of God" in the OT (it was mentioned by historian Plutarch)

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

On the Osirus comparisons to Jesus: Are these not sources??

-Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia: On Isis and Osiris 35;

-and also describe his physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is explicitly described in pre-Christian pyramid inscriptions!

-Plutarch writes that.....(On Isis and Osiris 54).

-(Pyramid Texts 1684a-1685a and 1700, = [URL='http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt46.htm']Utterance 606; cf. Utterance 670);[/URL]

-most recent translation [URL='https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Egyptian-Pyramid-Texts-Writings-ebook/dp/B012HAMMNS/?ie=UTF8&tag=richardcarrier-20']of James P. Allen, cf. pp. 190, 224-25, 272.[/URL]

-s Plutarch [URL='http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/B.html']explains (On Isis and Osiris 25-27 & 54 and 58),[/URL]

-But as Plutarch said in [URL='http://penelope.uchicago.edu/misctracts/plutarche.html']On the E at Delphi 9, many religions of his day “narrate deaths and vanishings[/URL]
[URL='http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29fanismou%5Cs&la=greek&can=a%29fanismou%5Cs0&prior=kai%5C&d=Perseus:text:2008.01.0242:stephpage=389a&i=1#lexicon'][/URL]
[URL='http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29fanismou%5Cs&la=greek&can=a%29fanismou%5Cs0&prior=kai%5C&d=Perseus:text:2008.01.0242:stephpage=389a&i=1#lexicon']-(Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = [URL='http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt56.htm']Utterance 676). That sure sounds like a physical resurrection of Osiris’s body to me.[/URL][/URL]

Point, the apostles claim to witness the resurrection. Then they get persecuted for it.

A story "as told to me by.." mirroring at least 6 similar stories that pre-date it?
That's part of the mythology, chosen one/demigod/savior, gets cult following then the bad evil authorities harm them or imprison or kill them. But the apostles won't turn from the savior.

If you think about it if it were true and a guy could really do magic then it wouldn't be hard to die for him because you would have actual proof of life after death.
Anyway, stories of Christians being killed by Rome are exaggerated, Rome didn't mind those pagan movements and then in 3AD they converted.

 

[Jollybear]

They were, read the article again. Peter was long dead by the time that was written.

You seam to be so sure about that.

I read the article again like you asked.

Look here:

"The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led many scholars to conclude that it is pseudonymous. Many scholars argue that Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language,[1] none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.

Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter.[2] However, current scholarship has abandoned the persecution argument because the described persecution within the work does not necessitate a time period outside of the period of Peter.[3] Other scholars doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle’s ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.[4] Others argue that it makes little sense to ascribe the work to Peter when it could have been ascribed to Paul.[3]Alternatively, one theory supporting legitimate Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot disagrees, suggesting that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter,[5]and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.[6][7] On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[8] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is enough evidence to conclude that Peter did, in fact, write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[9] and early attestation of Peter's authorship is found in 2 Peter (AD 60–160)[10]and the letters of Clement (AD 70-140),[3] all supporting genuine Petrine origin. Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested."

See all those different views there?

You are too ready to believe the myths of the Bible.

You are too ready to disbelieve the truths of the bible. Now that didnt help you did it? Why is it so hard for people to just stay focused.

Here is a test question to see if you are a serious and honest student of the Bible:

Can you name any failed prophecies in the Bible?

No, but im sure you will give it a wheerl. However i will say this. Predictions and prophesy are different. Prophesy is not fortune telling. Prophesy is Gods planning. Predictions are good gauses based on education. Fortune telling is a claim to know the future through a vision or other means.

 

[Jollybear]

As I said it could help him deal with his inner problems. His hatred of homosexuality, not a teaching of Jesus, tells us he may have been a latent homosexual.

Why would he need to convert to Christianity to deal with his so called homosexuality? Being a jew he could have done the same thing. I dont follow? So, wer still left with a power motive. Any more possible motives?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seam to be so sure about that.

I read the article again like you asked.

Look here:

"The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led many scholars to conclude that it is pseudonymous. Many scholars argue that Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language,[1] none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.

Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter.[2] However, current scholarship has abandoned the persecution argument because the described persecution within the work does not necessitate a time period outside of the period of Peter.[3] Other scholars doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle’s ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.[4] Others argue that it makes little sense to ascribe the work to Peter when it could have been ascribed to Paul.[3]Alternatively, one theory supporting legitimate Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot disagrees, suggesting that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter,[5]and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.[6][7] On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[8] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is enough evidence to conclude that Peter did, in fact, write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[9] and early attestation of Peter's authorship is found in 2 Peter (AD 60–160)[10]and the letters of Clement (AD 70-140),[3] all supporting genuine Petrine origin. Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested."

See all those different views there?



You are too ready to disbelieve the truths of the bible. Now that didnt help you did it? Why is it so hard for people to just stay focused.



No, but im sure you will give it a wheerl. However i will say this. Predictions and prophesy are different. Prophesy is not fortune telling. Prophesy is Gods planning. Predictions are good gauses based on education. Fortune telling is a claim to know the future through a vision or other means.

Whoa!!! Wait a minute. We were not discussing I Peter, which is also of dubious authorship. We were discussing II Peter, the source that you used to confirm that Peter met Paul. Why did you change the book that we were discussing? I hope that this was an honest error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would he need to convert to Christianity to deal with his so called homosexuality? Being a jew he could have done the same thing. I dont follow? So, wer still left with a power motive. Any more possible motives?

Who knows, perhaps the Jewish people of his day were not as zealous in their persecution as he would like. After all they had been under both Greek and Roman influence that did not seem to hate homosexuality as much as Paul did. Also running your own religion, which he did, allows one to make up one's own rules.

 

[Jollybear]

How do I explain a 2000 year old tale of supernatural happenings? Are you serious right now?

No, i just ask for kicks and giggles, of course im serious.

That question kind of answers itself but to pretend like there is any reason to believe one of the dozens of demigod myths from the Middle East - they actually didn't claim that, someone else said they claimed that.
The gospels start with the greek euaggelion (gospel), kata (according to) which is how Greek writers at the time would say "as told to me by this guy".

Where does the gospels start with that?

Plus, the gospel content, plus the epistles claim to be witness accounts.

People in one religion kill people in other religions all over the place in antiquity.
People kneeled and refused to denounce Mercury and were beheaded.
People in a cult in the US Midwest all killed THEMSELVES so they could board a ufo that their savior was riding on near Saturn.
Refusing to denounce your savior god and being killed is a standard part of history as we know it. Every religion, philosophy, whatever. It show how deep people will believe things.

And thats not what it means to be a witness.

We know for a fact that people were willing to die for gods and symbols that we now know were fiction. So that proves that it doesn't mean the movement has any reality to it's mythology.

I agree

Not like today at all. We are past the age of enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the spread of reading, writing and having access to books that teach history, philosophy etc...
The common person had no knowledge of reality, to them believing in a supernatural entity was like how we now believe in other galaxies.
People consulted the church for truth. After 3AD heretics were killed off.

Stop acting like everyone believed the supernatural. It was then like it is now, a wide variety of views. Just with less technology.

Yes witnesses. Do they validate the reality of the ufo savior in his ufo flying over Saturn?

And wer they witnesses or did they believe?

That's a lie or you didn't look to current scholarship.
This is a nice summary and it's sourced well:
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

If you want more data it's there, you can't complain about data as if there is no data. Carrier has a 700 page book with meticulous sources, all the data you would ever need is there. So you can't attack it from that angle.
also Ad-homs on Carrier don't mean much either.
The savior messiah thing was all the rage before Jesus.
The Jews didnt' even have an afterlife or heaven/hell until after the Persian invasion.
Oddly enough the Persion religion did have all that heaven, hell, bad vs good in a cosmic battle and a savior god to forgive your sins.
In the OT we see that stuff emerge after the Jews regained their freedom.

It's not a website it's a blog with essays from a Ph.D. in biblical history and is sourced. If you want to go deeo you'll have to get his book or simply write him on Facebook with questions. He answered mine. I was skeptical about the angel named Jesus who was "firstborn son of God" in the OT (it was mentioned by historian Plutarch)

Where does plutarch mention jesus as an angel, son of God? Where?

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

On the Osirus comparisons to Jesus: Are these not sources??

No

-Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia: On Isis and Osiris 35;

Where in the egyptian book of the dead does it say osiris returned to life? Quote it verbatum.

-and also describe his physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is explicitly described in pre-Christian pyramid inscriptions!

-Plutarch writes that.....(On Isis and Osiris 54).

Quote it verbatum.

-(Pyramid Texts 1684a-1685a and 1700, = Utterance 606; cf. Utterance 670);

-most recent translation of James P. Allen, cf. pp. 190, 224-25, 272.

-s Plutarch explains (On Isis and Osiris 25-27 & 54 and 58),

-But as Plutarch said in On the E at Delphi 9, many religions of his day “narrate deaths and vanishings
-(Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676). That sure sounds like a physical resurrection of Osiris’s body to me.

Did you even read that crap man?

A story "as told to me by.." mirroring at least 6 similar stories that pre-date it?
That's part of the mythology, chosen one/demigod/savior, gets cult following then the bad evil authorities harm them or imprison or kill them. But the apostles won't turn from the savior.

I dont think you know what the hell your talking about.

If you think about it if it were true and a guy could really do magic then it wouldn't be hard to die for him because you would have actual proof of life after death.

Who said it was hard for the apostles to die for him? Yes, they wer human, but they still died for him.

Anyway, stories of Christians being killed by Rome are exaggerated, Rome didn't mind those pagan movements and then in 3AD they converted.

Exaggerated huh? Have you read any of the persecutions and myrters?

You sound clueless. And it looks like you dont even know your own crap either.

 

[Jollybear]

Whoa!!! Wait a minute. We were not discussing I Peter, which is also of dubious authorship. We were discussing II Peter, the source that you used to confirm that Peter met Paul. Why did you change the book that we were discussing? I hope that this was an honest error.

Even 2nd peter has different opinions by schollars. But, lets go with peter didnt write it.

Ok, so, either someone wrote it for him or a disciple of his did after his death.

Either way it be peters teachings.

 

[Jollybear]

Who knows, perhaps the Jewish people of his day were not as zealous in their persecution as he would like. After all they had been under both Greek and Roman influence that did not seem to hate homosexuality as much as Paul did. Also running your own religion, which he did, allows one to make up one's own rules.

Heres 3 facts for you.

First paul did not need to convert to have power.

Second paul did not need to convert to preach against homosexuality . The law of moses had references against the practice.

Thirdly, Converting was not safe for paul.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even 2nd peter has different opinions by schollars. But, lets go with peter didnt write it.

Ok, so, either someone wrote it for him or a disciple of his did after his death.

Either way it be peters teachings.

Or it could have been a student of Paul's trying to give him some credibility. It does not serve as evidence for your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heres 3 facts for you.

First paul did not need to convert to have power.

that would mean unsupported opinion of yours.

Second paul did not need to convert to preach against homosexuality . The law of moses had references against the practice.

see above.

Thirdly, Converting was not safe for paul.

Perhaps not. The tales of Christian martyrdom are rather overblown. Converting was not risky, but being a rabble rouser has always been unsafe.

 

[Jollybear]

Or it could have been a student of Paul's trying to give him some credibility. It does not serve as evidence for your claims.

So, paul is constantly lying and is persecuted for it without recant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, paul is constantly lying and is persecuted for it without recant.

Why does everything have to be lying? We have gone over that error countless times.

 

[Jollybear]

that would mean unsupported opinion of yours.

Its quite logical. He already had power. Just being able to read and write was an upper hand.

see above.

He very well could have stayed a jew and preached against homosexuality . Saying rome accepted homosexuals is like saying the USA government acceps them. Ok....so? One dont need to leave there religion because of that.

Perhaps not. The tales of Christian martyrdom are rather overblown. Converting was not risky, but being a rabble rouser has always been unsafe.

No it was not overblown. Your downplaying it now.