Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[Dawnofhope]

I've thought a lot about the gospels today so thank you for your well considered posts. I appreciate you have been studying the bible for many years.

The ‘original’ ending of Mark (Mark 16:1-8) does include reference to the resurrection. None of the canonical NT has anyone witness the resurrection event itself. The other Gospels have witnesses to the risen Jesus but not Mark. In Mark, the tomb is found empty and a young man says that Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee.

Mark 16:9-20 is clearly a later add on. It s totally different from Mark’s normal writing style. It is a collage of re to events in later Gospels. Early manuscripts do not contain this section. And it is not the only ‘add-on’ to exist.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities concerning why Mark would end his Gospel that way. One is that this was an early tradition turned up by him while researching the subject as appears to be the case with several other passages. If this is the case it just might be the literal truth and a possible origin of the resurrection story. Alternatively, it might be the case that when Mark wrote sometime after 70 AD a resurrected Jesus was so much an accepted part of Christian belief that it did not need to be repeated. If this is the case, the point of Mark ending his Gospel there might be yet another lesson in the need for faith, a major point of Mark.

Mark has ended with the resurrection story (all eight verses of it) because its an important part of the story of Christ, but he clearly didn't see the need to emphasise it to the same degree as Matthew. The author was not an eye witness to events that he wrote but was no doubt trying to faithfully convey the Life and Teachings of Jesus as had been passed down largely through oral traditions. At the time of writing preaching of the gospel to the surrounding regions would have been well advanced, particularly to the more receptive gentiles.

The vineyard had passed from the hands of the Jews to the Gentiles. The stone (Jesus) the builders (the Jews) rejected became the head cornerstone.

And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'
And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Mark 12:1-10

This is the theme which Paul writes in Romans 9:30-33:

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Matthew sought to enhance Mark’s story to avoid the obvious skeptic’s interpretation: that there was no resurrection, the body was stolen and a shill said Jesus rose from the dead and went away. (Matthew even mentions that exactly these stories were going around.) Towards this end, Matthew turns Mark’s young man into a super-dramatic angel descending from heaven to open the tomb. He has a guard placed on the tomb to prevent body snatching. He has witnesses to the risen Jesus both near the tomb and in Galilee.

The curious passage in Matthew 27:50-53 where graves open when Jesus dies but the occupants do not come out until after the resurrection of Jesus, which does not happen until Sunday. I am imagining Matthew making the death of Jesus more dramatic than Mark did, as he did with the resurrection, then remembering that Jesus has to be the ‘first fruits’ in Paul’s phrase, resurrected before anyone else. He then stuck in ‘after his resurrection’ to cover up that slip. By adding the phrase, Matthew now dramatizes the resurrection as well but without interfering with his main resurrection story in Matthew 28.

Matthew’s goal in all this was to cover up the credibility defects in Mark’s story. Although Matthew’s additions are obviously purposeful fiction, it is nonetheless clear that he intended them to be taken literally. Otherwise the additions would not serve their purpose of supplanting Mark’s suspicious account. After all, what could Matthew’s account of the guards being bribed be symbolic of? The real purpose of that was to counter the stolen body story being told.

There is a definite evolution of the resurrection story from Mark to Matthew as you say. The author(s) of Matthew have refined it into a complex allegorical story, but like the first stories in the first nine chapters of genesis, it is pure religious mythology. Making it sound as if it actually happened makes the story very powerful. The problem comes when we insist genesis and the resurrection are literally true, but science has rendered such an interpretation obsolete.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 is a close copy of Mark 13. Nothing in either place is meant symbolically. Mark’s main purpose in writing his Gospel was to strengthen faith in a swift return of Jesus as implied by Paul. The material in Mark suggests the death of Jesus to have been around 30 AD or so. Now it was after 70 AD and still no Jesus. In addition, the Messiah was to have defeated the enemies of Israel, which in that era meant Rome. But in the recent Jewish Revolt, Rome had come close to annihilating Israel, with Jerusalem and the Temple destroyed, the countryside ravaged and a million dead. If Jesus did not return as expected, the whole Christian message of a resurrection, judgment and reward for the righteous was in danger.

Here is where the cleverness of Mark comes into play. He re-imagines the destruction of the Temple not as a catastrophic defeat but as the foreshadowing of ultimate victory. This is to be the first sign of the beginning of the end of days, followed quickly by the return of Jesus and the gathering of the righteous to their eternal reward. That theme is straight out of Paul but Mark goes beyond Paul in linking all of this to the prophecies of Daniel. This includes the Son of Man appellation that Mark uses frequently and is the first to use (Paul knows nothing of it). It comes from Daniel 7:13-14. Mark also explicitly refers to the ’abomination of the desolation’ from Daniel 9:27.

By having the destruction of the Temple be prophesied by Jesus over 40 years before and have this be labeled as a sign of the beginning of the end, readers of Mark would understand that the end of days was just around the corner and that they should keep their faith. Mark makes the timing clear when he says in Mark 8:38 – Mark 9:1 that some of his listeners will still be alive when it all goes down. This is reiterated in Mark 13:30.

Am I to presume you are a preterist?

Preterism - Wikipedia

I'm not and believe the Olivet discourse are the words of Jesus carefully recorded in the synoptic gospels. Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple of course but from this more immediate event that may have already come to pass at the time these gospels were written, Jesus also speaks in symbolic language of much more distant events when He shall return.

Mark refers to the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 which Jesus in part fulfils. The numbers seven times seventy within Daniel's prophecy are also mentioned by Matthew 18:21-22.

I agree that many Christians in the first century believed Jesus would literally return in their lifetime, but then one of the themes of Mark is the lack of spiritual perception of the disciples of Jesus. The problem with the Preterist perspective is it implies not only the Christians got it wrong, but Jesus did too.

None of this was intended to be taken as symbolic. It was meant to be taken literally, that Jesus was really coming back very soon and the prophesied destruction of the Temple, already happened for Mark’s readers, was the sign of it. Otherwise it would have no value in restoring or bolstering faith. It is not that apocalyptic images are interwoven with the destruction of the Temple. They are all of a piece. It is all meant literally.

You may want to consider how stars can literally fall to earth and how Jesus would appear on clouds of great power.

Matthew incorporated Mark’s Olivet Discourse virtually unchanged but it being now five or ten years later Matthew distances himself somewhat from just how soon Jesus is coming back, saying that ‘the master may be gone a long time’ Matthew 25, which immediately follows his Olivet discourse, has three sections. The first section is a parable. The five wise virgins took extra oil for their lamps. The foolish ones did not. The oil is faith. Be ready for the return of Jesus even if he is ‘a long time coming’. The second section is another parable. Its message is to not just wait around for Jesus but to do something that he will be pleased with.

I believe the thief in the night image (Matthew 24:42-44) along with the rest of Matthew 24 and 25 are the words of Jesus and a clear warning against having too rigid an expectation as to exactly when Christ would return.

Although the first two sections are parables, using the word ‘like’ to indicate they are not to be taken literally, the third section is not a parable. The word ‘like’ is not used. It is a straightforward prophecy of what will happen at the judgment when the Son of Man returns. It is about what he will be pleased with as the second parable foreshadows. And what is that? Charitable works done for their own sake and not just because of rules saying you have to. This behavior can be seen to arise from having the right attitude. In Mark 10:17-19, Jesus is asked how to obtain eternal life and replies with a set of action-oriented commandments. Matthew’s version in Matthew 19:16-19 has Jesus add ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’. The third section of Matthew 25 is plainly meant literally. Charity is essential. Failure to practice charity condemns one to eternal punishment. No reason to take this as other than literal.

Other than the parables in Matthew 25, plainly identified as such by Matthew, there is no reason to think any of this was not meant to be taken literally.

I really like Matthew 25:31-46 because its such a stark reminder that it is our actions but words or professed beliefs that God requires of us. Those actions are applicable to peoples of all faiths, not just Christians.

Concerning who wrote Matthew: Mark names the tax collector who followed Jesus Levi, with Matthew being a different Apostle. Luke follows suit. It has been speculated that the (anonymous) Gospel of Matthew was given that name because of this difference. I wonder if whoever wrote that Gospel might really have been named Matthew and did the switch from Mark’s version to put his name ‘up in lights’.

Maybe

 

[Dawnofhope]

Paul tell us extremely little about the life and teachings of Jesus. That he was born Jewish, that he instituted a certain bread and wine ritual and that he was crucified.is about all there is. Paul claimed that he received special knowledge from Jesus in visions, knowledge that apparently Jesus never told to the Apostles, for example about Jewish Law being no longer in effect. Reading Paul’s letters, it becomes clear that his readers already knew some things about Jesus, such as that he was crucified and supposedly rose from the dead although not everyone bought into the last one.

As a Baha'i, Paul is regarded as an apostle of Christ and highly regarded. There is no Pauline theology that is contradicts the essential message of Jesus. Paul does bring together the Teachings of the Christ and the OT together in a practical way that greatly enables to establishment and early development of the Church. Baha'is accept the NT in its entirety. There is no books we remove or change because it doesn't fit our theology. The Baha'is and Christians do have important theological differences though, including the resurrection of Christ.

In seeking to convince his readers at Corinth of the fact of resurrection, Paul introduces 500+ eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus. That none of the Gospel writers saw fit to include anything so grandiose gives a hint as to how they felt about Paul’s story. Keep in mind that Mark includes the bread and wine ritual from 1 Corinthians but not the alleged resurrection witnesses shows that this omission was no accident.

I suspect the 500 witness which simply means many people, are the same people Matthew refers to as having arisen from their graves(Matthew 27:52).

Corinthians is thought to have been written in about 53-54 AD in contrast to the gospels that were written later, perhaps after the destruction of the Jewish temple.

First Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

Its noteworthy to consider how Paul likens his experience of witnessing the resurrected Christ to all the others who allegedly saw Christ during the 40 days of His appearances (1 Corinthians 15:4-9). However Paul had an experience of being blinded and hearing Christ saying why are you persecuting me on the road to Damascus several years after Christ's resurrection experiences.

Mark’s Gospel includes a number of stories about Jesus that definitely do not come from Paul. Nor do they really make much sense to a Christian contemporary to Mark. A prime example of that is the argument over the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Um … what? That plus Mark’s strong grasp of the political, social and religious environment ca. 30 AD points to Mark having had access to early traditions about Jesus independent of Paul.

My point isn't that Mark used Paul as his primary source, but instead relied heavily on oral traditions and the stories being preached by the apostles (including Paul).

Major elements introduced into the Jesus story by Paul (e.g., Son of God) do get incorporated into the Gospels. But much of that story appears to be from other sources. Also keep in mind that in the Gospels Jesus is unmistakably a (written) Torah observant Jew. Saying that Paul started it all does not wash.

The Son of God designation is arguably the most important of those used by Mark.

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

Paul was a vital part of the spearhead of early Christian preaching but he was one of many and there were the apostles and great teachers who came before him.

An additional reference to the body of Christ by Paul. In Catholicism, it is the taking of Communion (root word ‘community’) and the Mass in which that is done that unites the Church. The host is taken to be literally supernaturally the body and blood of Christ.

Of course Communion was established by Christ Himself at His last supper.

Christ hinted at His resurrection (Matthew 12:40).

Given Christ spoke in parables, the need for metaphors such as 'Son of God', and themes such as Messianic prophetic is it suprising that the apostles and gospel writers used symbolism and allegory with the resurrection to convey spiritual meanings?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

There is a definite evolution of the resurrection story from Mark to Matthew as you say. The author(s) of Matthew have refined it into a complex allegorical story, but like the first stories in the first nine chapters of genesis, it is pure religious mythology. Making it sound as if it actually happened makes the story very powerful. The problem comes when we insist genesis and the resurrection are literally true, but science has rendered such an interpretation obsolete.

Busy today, so I will only reply to this part now.

I fail to see any allegory in Matthew. If you see such allegories, please identify and explain them. Matthew very plainly intends to be understood literally to counteract the obvious (and possibly real) skeptical conclusion about Mark - stolen body, shill says Jesus rose from the dead. Or what do you think Matthew's detailed story about the guards is an allegory of? What deeper meaning does it have? For that matter what is the deeper meaning of any of the elements of Matthew's resurrection story? Matthew's resurrection account is fiction written to be understood as real in order to reassure the faithful that Jesus really rose from the dead. Allegory is probably beyond his skill set.

The signs of Matthew clumsily going overboard are here, such as having the angel tell the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (as per Mark) and then moments later have Jesus appear to tell the women the same thing! If Jesus is right there in Jerusalem, why do they have to go to Galilee to see him? Matthew stuck this in to have witnesses to the risen Jesus, which Mark does not.

Concerning clumsily going overboard, other examples are the already mentioned saints coming out of their graves and the two animal entry into Jerusalem.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Matthew's resurrection account is fiction written to be understood as real in order to reassure the faithful that Jesus really rose from the dead. Allegory is probably beyond his skill set.

Maybe it was beyond the spiritual capacity of the audience, thus more descripitve spiritual comparisons were required.

I could say I am sad, but may wish to tell you how sad and thus start to use more materially descriptive words.

I could say my heart has been torn in two, all the while knowing it is a feelng of heart I am trying to impart to the listner.

The listner now gets a vision of the sadness.

After a while, the spiritual intent gets combined with the material explanation, as history has shown does happen, this is why Christ comes again and makes all things new.

Faiths also have seasons and winter clouds the Spiritual.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Busy today, so I will only reply to this part now.

I fail to see any allegory in Matthew. If you see such allegories, please identify and explain them. Matthew very plainly intends to be understood literally to counteract the obvious (and possibly real) skeptical conclusion about Mark - stolen body, shill says Jesus rose from the dead. Or what do you think Matthew's detailed story about the guards is an allegory of? What deeper meaning does it have? For that matter what is the deeper meaning of any of the elements of Matthew's resurrection story? Matthew's resurrection account is fiction written to be understood as real in order to reassure the faithful that Jesus really rose from the dead. Allegory is probably beyond his skill set.

The signs of Matthew clumsily going overboard are here, such as having the angel tell the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (as per Mark) and then moments later have Jesus appear to tell the women the same thing! If Jesus is right there in Jerusalem, why do they have to go to Galilee to see him? Matthew stuck this in to have witnesses to the risen Jesus, which Mark does not.

Concerning clumsily going overboard, other examples are the already mentioned saints coming out of their graves and the two animal entry into Jerusalem.

Matthew has been carefully crafted. Although the author(s) use Mark as a primary source and incorporates over 90% of that text is nearly twice as long as Mark.

Matthew more than any other book has over 60 references to the OT.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

Matthew stands as the opening book in the New Testament and so has ben held in high regard for centuries. Much of his text are the Words of Jesus which are often in parables. For me, it is simply unthinkable that the author is incapable of allegory.

Ascend and descent to heaven symbolise nearness or distance from the world of God.

Angels represent a message from God and heralding a Divine announcement.

The tomb is a symbol of belief (an empty tomb) or disbelief (if it contains the dead body of Jesus).

The stone at the entrance is a barrier to a belief in Christ as with the Roman guards.

Rising from the dead symbolises new spiritual life as does being born again.

Earthquakes can be paradigm shifts or in the context of the bible the movement from the old covenant to the new.

The tearing of the veil of the temple similarly means that through Jesus we come to God, and the temple is no longer necessary. Its also prefigures the destruction of the temple.

The appearances of Christ represent having Faith.

The text of Matthew viewed in this manner doesn't look clumsy at all. The authors primary concern was to encourage the faithful after all, not to convince the unbeliever.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The tearing of the veil of the temple similarly means that through Jesus we come to God, and the temple is no longer necessary. Its also prefigures the destruction of the temple.

It also allows us to consider what the new Temple will be.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

...There is a definite evolution of the resurrection story from Mark to Matthew as you say. The author(s) of Matthew have refined it into a complex allegorical story, but like the first stories in the first nine chapters of genesis, it is pure religious mythology. Making it sound as if it actually happened makes the story very powerful. The problem comes when we insist genesis and the resurrection are literally true, but science has rendered such an interpretation obsolete.

"Evolution" of the story? As in that it grew into something bigger and different than before? How about the whole story of Jesus? How many gospels have the virgin birth story? Are they consistent? Beyond that, the things told in the gospels about the things Jesus said and did... are they consistent?

I see variations in all the gospels... Even in the details about the crucifixion. Now we get into the resurrection. Do all the gospels say the same things happened? No, they all have variations. So you say Matthew made up a "complex" allegorical story. If so then Luke and John copied Matthew? If so, why do they have variations from what he said? Or, did they all get their information from the oral traditions passed on by those that supposedly knew Jesus?

So you have a problem with the resurrection and the first nine chapters of Genesis... and no where else? So did Elijah fly off in a fiery chariot? Did the walls of Jericho fall down? Did the sea part for the Hebrews? Did Daniel's friend survive unhurt from being thrown into a furnace? Or is the whole Bible filled with unlikely things being presented as literal, historical events?

You say it is "pure" religious mythology... making it sound as if it "actually" happened? But it didn't. Then that's fictional. If we know it is myth, we take it as such. But, if it's passed on as the "inerrant" Word of God, then that makes those that say such a thing as liars and deceivers. Is that what Christians are? The Bible says something that doesn't line up with scientific thinking, and we are to be smart enough to start looking at it as a metaphor. Why? To me the most logical way to look at it is that if it isn't true, if it really didn't happen, then the writers made it up. Why would all the gospel writers come up with the same allegorical resurrection story? It makes much more sense, if it didn't really happen, that the resurrection myth was past on down and when it got written down, each writer embellished the story.

But I know you can't have that. Baha'is need the "truth" of the allegorical, symbolic resurrection. But really Matthew thinking up all those symbolic meanings weaving them into the resurrection story? I don't think so.

 

[CG Didymus]

...There is no books we remove or change because it doesn't fit our theology. The Baha'is and Christians do have important theological differences though, including the resurrection of Christ.

...Given Christ spoke in parables, the need for metaphors such as 'Son of God', and themes such as Messianic prophetic is it suprising that the apostles and gospel writers used symbolism and allegory with the resurrection to convey spiritual meanings?

"There is no books we remove or change because it doesn't fit our theology. The Baha'is and Christians do have important theological differences though, including the resurrection of Christ." That's a pretty substantial change.

I've asked this so many times... so the gospel writers tell of the events of the life of Jesus up to the crucifixion and then suddenly, all of them, break into symbolism and allegory? Whether or not it is true, I still think they intended it to be believed as true, and therefore, they, themselves, believed it to be true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I've asked this so many times... so the gospel writers tell of the events of the life of Jesus up to the crucifixion and then suddenly, all of them, break into symbolism and allegory? Whether or not it is true, I still think they intended it to be believed as true, and therefore, they, themselves, believed it to be true.

I am also sure we have answered many times, also with many quotes, that there are many Spiritual mysteries behind all the stories.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Evolution" of the story? As in that it grew into something bigger and different than before? How about the whole story of Jesus? How many gospels have the virgin birth story? Are they consistent? Beyond that, the things told in the gospels about the things Jesus said and did... are they consistent?

As time passes our understanding about what is real and true evolves and changes. We have four different gospels with at least four different perspectives. The central message that Jesus was the Messiah amd through His Teachings we can have salvation remains consistent.

I see variations in all the gospels... Even in the details about the crucifixion. Now we get into the resurrection. Do all the gospels say the same things happened? No, they all have variations. So you say Matthew made up a "complex" allegorical story. If so then Luke and John copied Matthew? If so, why do they have variations from what he said? Or, did they all get their information from the oral traditions passed on by those that supposedly knew Jesus?

It would be safe to assume that most of the teaching happened by word of mouth or oral traditions rather than the written word. Of course there will be variations.

So you have a problem with the resurrection and the first nine chapters of Genesis... and no where else? So did Elijah fly off in a fiery chariot? Did the walls of Jericho fall down? Did the sea part for the Hebrews? Did Daniel's friend survive unhurt from being thrown into a furnace? Or is the whole Bible filled with unlikely things being presented as literal, historical events?

I have no problem with the resurrection or genesis because I don't feel obliged to see it literally. Same deal with other parts of the Bible. The most important aspect of the stories is the spiritual message they convey, not whether they actually happened or not.

You say it is "pure" religious mythology... making it sound as if it "actually" happened? But it didn't. Then that's fictional. If we know it is myth, we take it as such. But, if it's passed on as the "inerrant" Word of God, then that makes those that say such a thing as liars and deceivers. Is that what Christians are? The Bible says something that doesn't line up with scientific thinking, and we are to be smart enough to start looking at it as a metaphor. Why? To me the most logical way to look at it is that if it isn't true, if it really didn't happen, then the writers made it up. Why would all the gospel writers come up with the same allegorical resurrection story? It makes much more sense, if it didn't really happen, that the resurrection myth was past on down and when it got written down, each writer embellished the story.

At the heart of the gospel stories in an experience with the Risen Christ. That is the core of Faith. If you want to see it from a secular perspective, thats your choice, as its mine to see the Bible as Divinely Inspired. At some point we either connect with Christ or we don't. We come to Christ through having a pure and loving heart. The intellect can assist us remove barriers or paradoxically become the greatest obstacle of all.

But I know you can't have that. Baha'is need the "truth" of the allegorical, symbolic resurrection. But really Matthew thinking up all those symbolic meanings weaving them into the resurrection story? I don't think so.

Baha'is need to live the life and ensure that our lives reflect what we believe. The symbolism of the gospels is as clear as the spiritual truths within the parables that Christ taught.

"There is no books we remove or change because it doesn't fit our theology. The Baha'is and Christians do have important theological differences though, including the resurrection of Christ." That's a pretty substantial change.

I've asked this so many times... so the gospel writers tell of the events of the life of Jesus up to the crucifixion and then suddenly, all of them, break into symbolism and allegory? Whether or not it is true, I still think they intended it to be believed as true, and therefore, they, themselves, believed it to be true.

You believe the gospel writers intended to write about history and they believed the resurrection literally happened. If that's your sincere belief, then that's fine. We all need to discover for ourselves what is the truth and live in accordance with our highest beliefs and aspirations.

 

[Jean Valjean]

adrenaline would be the medical evidence...

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Mark has ended with the resurrection story (all eight verses of it) because its an important part of the story of Christ, but he clearly didn't see the need to emphasise it to the same degree as Matthew. The author was not an eye witness to events that he wrote but was no doubt trying to faithfully convey the Life and Teachings of Jesus as had been passed down largely through oral traditions. At the time of writing preaching of the gospel to the surrounding regions would have been well advanced, particularly to the more receptive gentiles.

The vineyard had passed from the hands of the Jews to the Gentiles. The stone (Jesus) the builders (the Jews) rejected became the head cornerstone.

As I see it, Matthew was trying to make up for what he perceived as deficits in Mark’s account. As I said before, Mark wrote it that way because either that is the tradition he was given or because the idea of the resurrection of Jesus was already so entrenched that he did not need to ‘prove’ it. After all, his main program was emphasizing the importance of keeping the faith despite the passage of time with Jesus still a non-show.

To Matthew, Mark’s account – empty tomb, somebody says Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee – would sound a lot like grave robbery and a cover story. Matthew even mentions that such a story was being told. Mark’s young man, a possible shill, becomes a dramatic angel in Matthew. No lack of authority. Guards assigned to prevent the body from being stolen see the angel roll back the stone. No chance of a shill or of grave robbery either. The stories being told about that arose, Matthew tells us, from the cover story invented to cover up the truth. Matthew also has witnesses to the risen Jesus, both near the tomb and in Galilee. No doubt about a resurrection. I have already pointed out some of the issues I have with Matthew’s account but will not repeat them.

Am I to presume you are a preterist?

Preterism - Wikipedia

I'm not and believe the Olivet discourse are the words of Jesus carefully recorded in the synoptic gospels. Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple of course but from this more immediate event that may have already come to pass at the time these gospels were written, Jesus also speaks in symbolic language of much more distant events when He shall return.

Mark refers to the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 which Jesus in part fulfils. The numbers seven times seventy within Daniel's prophecy are also mentioned by Matthew 18:21-22.

I agree that many Christians in the first century believed Jesus would literally return in their lifetime, but then one of the themes of Mark is the lack of spiritual perception of the disciples of Jesus. The problem with the Preterist perspective is it implies not only the Christians got it wrong, but Jesus did too.

The label ‘preterist’ carries rather more baggage than I care to carry around. I would not go so far as to say that Jesus got it wrong. I am not certain that a real historical Jesus was thinking in apocalyptic terms. He may have thought of himself as a new prophet, urging a return to the spirit of the Law as did prophets of yore. Those prophets often looked forward to a messianic age but did not think it would happen soon. Some of the prophets, Malachi especially, saw a return to the spirit of the Law instead of slavish attention to ritual as a way of making Israel worthy of a Messiah and the messianic age and so speeding his arrival. On the theory that the more Jewish portrayals of Jesus in the Gospels (in much copied Mark anyway) are more likely to be authentic traditions, Jesus himself could easily fit this pattern.

See:
APOCALYPSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com APOCALYPSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The introduction of a near future apocalyptic end of days seems to be Paul’s doing. It may be that Paul read Daniel. Consider the following:

1 Thessalonians 4
15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

The reference to clouds might be from Daniel 7:13-14, or it may not. Paul does not use the phrase Son of Man, but this may be because of his desire to not confuse things by having both ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’ in his writings.

What does seem very likely is that Paul was influenced by the other Jewish Apocalyptic literature available at that time. The dramatic end of days idea in which the world is changed with the coming of the Messiah is one common element in these works. The resurrection of the dead is another. If Jesus was the Messiah as Paul says (and apparently was not his invention) and he rose from the dead (again a pre-existing notion), the apocalyptic concepts could be adapted very easily to make a really compelling story. Having Jesus the Son of God (a messianic title) become the pre-existing quasi-divine Jesus the Son of God (as conceived by Philo of Alexandria) would impart enormous power to the story.

See: https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

You may want to consider how stars can literally fall to earth and how Jesus would appear on clouds of great power.

Mark is paraphrasing Isaiah 13:10 and Isaiah 34:4 and Daniel 7:13-14. The last the source of the phrase ‘Son of Man’. They are part of existing prophecy about the end of days and were apparently meant literally by the original writers, if perhaps expressed as hyperbole.

I believe the thief in the night image (Matthew 24:42-44) along with the rest of Matthew 24 and 25 are the words of Jesus and a clear warning against having too rigid an expectation as to exactly when Christ would return.

In his Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), in order to revive faith in a speedy return of Jesus, Mark has Jesus say that the destruction of the Temple will be the first sign that the end of days are beginning. Mark apparently wrote not too long after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Too long after and it would not be a credible claim. That Mark intended to say that the end would follow not too long after the Temple was destroyed is clear from Mark 8:38 – Mark 9:1, which says that some of those hearing Jesus speak will still be alive when the Son of Man returns. Mark repeats that thought in Mark 13:30. Nonetheless Mark cannot have all this happen immediately after the Temple business, otherwise it would be happening already. So he adds The passage about not knowing when the owner of the house will return (Mark 13:32-37).

Matthew wrote five or ten years after Mark. He repeats pretty much everything Mark says but adds even more disclaimers about the time frame (e.g., Matthew 24:36-51) including changing the owner of the home coming back unexpectedly into the image of a thief in the night. (v 43).

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I really like Matthew 25:31-46 because its such a stark reminder that it is our actions but words or professed beliefs that God requires of us. Those actions are applicable to peoples of all faiths, not just Christians.

Maybe

When asked how to obtain eternal life, Jesus replied with the commandments that are associated with action, omitting the religious ones and the ‘covet’ ones. ”You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.” (Mark 10:19) These are quotes directly from the Torah, and fit well with the Jesus we see in Mark 7:1-8 who has no patience for ‘man made rules’ that are about ritual and not what the Torah is really about.

As a Baha'i, Paul is regarded as an apostle of Christ and highly regarded. There is no Pauline theology that is contradicts the essential message of Jesus. Paul does bring together the Teachings of the Christ and the OT together in a practical way that greatly enables to establishment and early development of the Church. Baha'is accept the NT in its entirety. There is no books we remove or change because it doesn't fit our theology. The Baha'is and Christians do have important theological differences though, including the resurrection of Christ.

I suspect the 500 witness which simply means many people, are the same people Matthew refers to as having arisen from their graves(Matthew 27:52).

I do not see the connection between the many witnesses and the ‘saints’ who arose from the grave. If Paul was aware of anyone else being resurrected, he would certainly have used that is his argument that resurrection was possible. (You already know my opinion of what Matthew said about this. No need to repeat it.)

Corinthians is thought to have been written in about 53-54 AD in contrast to the gospels that were written later, perhaps after the destruction of the Jewish temple.

First Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

Its noteworthy to consider how Paul likens his experience of witnessing the resurrected Christ to all the others who allegedly saw Christ during the 40 days of His appearances (1 Corinthians 15:4-9). However Paul had an experience of being blinded and hearing Christ saying why are you persecuting me on the road to Damascus several years after Christ's resurrection experiences.

My point isn't that Mark used Paul as his primary source, but instead relied heavily on oral traditions and the stories being preached by the apostles (including Paul).

The Son of God designation is arguably the most important of those used by Mark.

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

Paul was a vital part of the spearhead of early Christian preaching but he was one of many and there were the apostles and great teachers who came before him.

Paul says that he got ‘his gospel’, which differed from that being offered by the Jerusalem church In very important ways, directly from Jesus in visions. Acts tells a different story. I see Luke writing Acts as a way to clean up all the problems and discrepancies of the earlier scriptures. Having Paul be in possession of information that Jesus did not give to the Apostles was a problem. So Luke has the ‘vision’ be simply Jesus telling Saul/Paul to stop persecuting the church and blinding him to drive the point home. In Acts Paul never gets any ‘private gospel’. He simply learns about and converts to an already established Christianity. In his usual masterful way, Luke wipes away Paul’s problematic claim via a dramatic imagination catching story, which he repeats two more time to make sure the reader does not forget.

Mark plainly did use traditions independent of Paul. But he also used Paul in very significant ways. Mark took the bread and wine ritual that Paul said was given to him and merged it with Paul’s depiction of Jesus as the Paschal Lamb. Result: Mark has the Last Supper be a Passover Seder. Unfortunately this lead to such improbabilities as the Sanhedrin meeting at night and on Passover when work of this sort would have been out of the question.

Christ hinted at His resurrection (Matthew 12:40).

Given Christ spoke in parables, the need for metaphors such as 'Son of God', and themes such as Messianic prophetic is it suprising that the apostles and gospel writers used symbolism and allegory with the resurrection to convey spiritual meanings?

Here are the places in the several Gospels where Jesus explicitly says that he will be killed but will rise again in three days.

Mark 8:31-33
Mark 9:30-32
Mark 10:33-34
Matthew 17:22-23
Matthew 20:17-19
Luke 9:21
Luke 18:31-33

John does not have explicit predictions of this type. He often refers to Jesus being ‘glorified’ in contexts that suggest death and resurrection. But the closest John comes to being explicit about the matter is this.

John 12:23-24
23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.

Sounds like the metaphor Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 about death and resurrection.

Matthew has been carefully crafted. Although the author(s) use Mark as a primary source and incorporates over 90% of that text is nearly twice as long as Mark.

Matthew more than any other book has over 60 references to the OT.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

Matthew stands as the opening book in the New Testament and so has ben held in high regard for centuries. Much of his text are the Words of Jesus which are often in parables. For me, it is simply unthinkable that the author is incapable of allegory.

Ascend and descent to heaven symbolise nearness or distance from the world of God.

Angels represent a message from God and heralding a Divine announcement.

The tomb is a symbol of belief (an empty tomb) or disbelief (if it contains the dead body of Jesus).

The stone at the entrance is a barrier to a belief in Christ as with the Roman guards.

Rising from the dead symbolises new spiritual life as does being born again.

Earthquakes can be paradigm shifts or in the context of the bible the movement from the old covenant to the new.

The tearing of the veil of the temple similarly means that through Jesus we come to God, and the temple is no longer necessary. Its also prefigures the destruction of the temple.

The appearances of Christ represent having Faith.

The text of Matthew viewed in this manner doesn't look clumsy at all. The authors primary concern was to encourage the faithful after all, not to convince the unbeliever.

You can allegorize all you want. But the plain sense of all the Gospel resurrection passages is that they are intended to be taken literally, that Jesus literally bodily rose from the dead. As Paul says:

1 Corinthians 15
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

The belief was clearly that of literal resurrection of the dead. The accounts in the Gospels very clearly embody this same belief about a literal resurrection from the dead. As Paul says, if this is not the case, the whole thing falls apart. This is why Matthew had to come up with his elaborate cover story for Mark.

 

[Dawnofhope]

adrenaline would be the medical evidence...

How about the biblical evidence?

 

[joelr]

You're debating. I don't debate with atheists. If you have a question about Biblical things, I may answer. I have studied the Bible extensively since small, been a missionary, with its education, etc.. Now I am non denominational and just go by the Bible. Even in Jewish scripture, there were at least two resurrections, but my memory is faulty, so perhaps there could have been more, but two is what I remember.

Don't you have a Jewish background?! I know according to my studies when each book was written and by whom; this is beyond what atheists and higher Bible criticism claims. Your claims are yours, mine are ours.

Enjoy your gospel of a chaos god, and I shall enjoy my Gospel of Christ. Go have a beer or something, and keep your faith, and let me have mine.

He is actually correct because the gospels start with the Greek phrase for "as told to me by" instead of the usual way to say "I am the author".

Tò katà Matthaīon euangélion; -The Gospel According to Matthew
So the gospel authors are not the same as the title.

 

[joelr]

How about the biblical evidence?

I took the time to read through this and I believe Bart Ehrman has made many false claims.
His case was pretty well debunked as well.
Ehrman on Historicity Recap - Richard Carrier


Ehrmans book on Jesus is so misleading that in some way it lends credibility to the mythicist theory:

"...filled with factual errors, logical fallacies, and badly worded arguments. Moreover, it completely fails at its one explicit task: to effectively critique the arguments for Jesus being a mythical person.

Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic - Richard Carrier



But regarding the resurrection, further down in the above article Carrier touches on the fact that there were many demigod resurrections before Jesus and they also included personal salvation through baptism, struggles with Satan, 12 disciples and so on:

"I shouldn’t have to adduce passages such as, from Plutarch, “[about] Dionysus, Zagreus, Nyctelius, and Isodaetes, they narrate deaths and vanishings, followed by returns to life and resurrections” (Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 9.388f-389a). That looks pretty cut and dried to me. But it’s worse than that. Because for Romulus and Zalmoxis we undeniably have pre-Christian evidence that they actually die (on earth) and are actually raised from the dead (on earth) and physically visit their disciples (on earth). And likewise for Inanna, a clear-cut death-and-resurrection tale exists on clay tablets a thousand years before Christianity (she dies and rises in hell, but departs from and returns to the world above all the same)."


Later on some mistakes Ehrman made on denying baptism in Pagan cults:

We also know that something like baptism into eternal life was a feature of the cult of Bacchus-Dionysus, and we know this not only because Plato mentions it (Plato, Republic 364e-365a, where we’re told of Orphic libations “for the remission of sins” that secure one a better place in the afterlife), but also from actual pre-Christian inscriptions (that’s right, words actually carved in stone). See examples in Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Fortress 1975), pp. 275-76, n. 116. Both sources (Plato and inscriptions) also confirm the Bacchic belief that one could be baptized on behalf of someone who had already died and thus gain them a better position in the afterlife. It cannot be a coincidence that exactly the same thing, baptism for the dead, is attested as a Christian rite in Paul (1 Corinthians 15:29). We have hints of baptismal rituals in other cults (Tertullian, for example, in On Baptism 5, describes numerous pagan rituals of baptism for the remission of sins, clearly understanding it to be a common practice everywhere known). Sure, in many of these cases the baptism was part of a larger ritual (perhaps involving prayer or incense), but Christian baptisms were not free of their own ritual accoutrements, so those hardly matter to the point.

This also undermines Ehrman’s claim that there is no evidence that the death of Osiris (or any other god) “brought atonement for sin” (p. 26). We know Egyptian afterlife belief made the physical weight of sin a factor in deciding one’s placement in the afterlife, and that (as just shown above) baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washes away those sins and thus lightens the soul to obtain the best place in heaven. It is hard to imagine how this does not entail that the death and resurrection of Osiris somehow procured salvation through remission of sins (and clearly a similar belief had developed in Bacchic and other cults). One could perhaps get nitpicky as to what might be the exact theology of the process, but whatever the differences, the similarity remains: the death and resurrection of Osiris was clearly believed to make it possible for those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism to have their sins remitted. That belief predates Christianity. Ehrman is simply wrong to say otherwise. And the evidence for this is clear, indisputable, and mainstream. Which means his book is useless if you want to know the facts of this matter. Or any matter, apparently."
Giving the mythicist theory a strong probability of being true.


So Ehrmans position that Christianity wasn't a copy of the mystery cults because baptism, resurrection and sin-forgiving (among many other similarities) wasn't known until Christian scripture is completely false. Did he make it up to sell books to Christians or is he trying to convince himself that that mythology is true? I don't know?

 

[Dawnofhope]

As I see it, Matthew was trying to make up for what he perceived as deficits in Mark’s account. As I said before, Mark wrote it that way because either that is the tradition he was given or because the idea of the resurrection of Jesus was already so entrenched that he did not need to ‘prove’ it. After all, his main program was emphasizing the importance of keeping the faith despite the passage of time with Jesus still a non-show.

To Matthew, Mark’s account – empty tomb, somebody says Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee – would sound a lot like grave robbery and a cover story. Matthew even mentions that such a story was being told. Mark’s young man, a possible shill, becomes a dramatic angel in Matthew. No lack of authority. Guards assigned to prevent the body from being stolen see the angel roll back the stone. No chance of a shill or of grave robbery either. The stories being told about that arose, Matthew tells us, from the cover story invented to cover up the truth. Matthew also has witnesses to the risen Jesus, both near the tomb and in Galilee. No doubt about a resurrection. I have already pointed out some of the issues I have with Matthew’s account but will not repeat them.

For a Baha'i perspective of the Bible you may be interested to see we encompass a range of views ranging from those that closely align to the conservatives to those of the liberal scholars. The true Baha'i perspective would be aligned between these two extremes.

A Bahá'í View of the Bible

Abdu'l-Baha, the eldest son of Baha'u'llah, who became the leader of the Baha'i Faith described the bible:

THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God.

Bahá'í Reference Library - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, Pages 17-18

As you have referenced the words of Jesus the requirements of attaining the kingdom of heaven, a man must obey the commandments including not giving false testimony (Mark 10:19). The idea that Matthew's primary motive was to fabricate a story to delibirately decieve his audience seems contrary to the Spirit of Truth.

The use of allegory and symbolism was one of Philo's attributes.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H3

Why would this not be reflected in one of the most outstanding and influential works of the NT?

The label ‘preterist’ carries rather more baggage than I care to carry around. I would not go so far as to say that Jesus got it wrong. I am not certain that a real historical Jesus was thinking in apocalyptic terms. He may have thought of himself as a new prophet, urging a return to the spirit of the Law as did prophets of yore. Those prophets often looked forward to a messianic age but did not think it would happen soon. Some of the prophets, Malachi especially, saw a return to the spirit of the Law instead of slavish attention to ritual as a way of making Israel worthy of a Messiah and the messianic age and so speeding his arrival. On the theory that the more Jewish portrayals of Jesus in the Gospels (in much copied Mark anyway) are more likely to be authentic traditions, Jesus himself could easily fit this pattern.

See:
APOCALYPSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com APOCALYPSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The introduction of a near future apocalyptic end of days seems to be Paul’s doing. It may be that Paul read Daniel. Consider the following:

Malachi refers to an apocalypse in association with Messianic expectation.

Jesus knew exactly who He was in that regard. Consider the criticism of the Jewish religious leaders that before the Messiah comes Elijah must come first.

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
Malachi 4:5

To this criticism Jesus responded:

And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
Matthew 17:10-13

The reference to clouds might be from Daniel 7:13-14, or it may not. Paul does not use the phrase Son of Man, but this may be because of his desire to not confuse things by having both ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’ in his writings.

What does seem very likely is that Paul was influenced by the other Jewish Apocalyptic literature available at that time. The dramatic end of days idea in which the world is changed with the coming of the Messiah is one common element in these works. The resurrection of the dead is another. If Jesus was the Messiah as Paul says (and apparently was not his invention) and he rose from the dead (again a pre-existing notion), the apocalyptic concepts could be adapted very easily to make a really compelling story. Having Jesus the Son of God (a messianic title) become the pre-existing quasi-divine Jesus the Son of God (as conceived by Philo of Alexandria) would impart enormous power to the story.

See: https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

Jesus appointed Peter as His successor:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19

The Baha'i perspective:
Of St Peter, the beloved guardian has written:
...let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that... the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the apostles, is upheld and defended.

...Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.”

In regards any conflict betwen Peter and Paul:
That St. Paul on occasion disputed with st. Peter is seen from st. Paul’s own words in the Epistle to the galatians, 2:11–14. it is also st. Paul who mentions early divisions among the Christians, which he endeavours to heal, in i Corinthians 1:11–13. st. Peter’s attitude
to st. Paul appears in ii Peter 3:15–18. in considering the relationship between st. Peter and st. Paul, one needs to bear in mind all of these various factors.
high praise in accorded to them both in the Bahá’í Writings. A particularly pertinent statement by `Abdu’l-Bahá appears on page 223 of the new publication
Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá 'One's conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one's faith similar to that of Peter'

Apostle Paul, a "False Teacher"?

Mark is paraphrasing Isaiah 13:10 and Isaiah 34:4 and Daniel 7:13-14. The last the source of the phrase ‘Son of Man’. They are part of existing prophecy about the end of days and were apparently meant literally by the original writers, if perhaps expressed as hyperbole.

I would argue the gospel writers were quoting Jesus who refers to both Isaiah and Daniel.

Isaiah has many Messianic references for the Jews that still await their Messiah:

Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

Christians of course believe Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah and the Jews failed to recognise Him. Do you have a different view?

In his Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), in order to revive faith in a speedy return of Jesus, Mark has Jesus say that the destruction of the Temple will be the first sign that the end of days are beginning. Mark apparently wrote not too long after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Too long after and it would not be a credible claim. That Mark intended to say that the end would follow not too long after the Temple was destroyed is clear from Mark 8:38 – Mark 9:1, which says that some of those hearing Jesus speak will still be alive when the Son of Man returns. Mark repeats that thought in Mark 13:30. Nonetheless Mark cannot have all this happen immediately after the Temple business, otherwise it would be happening already. So he adds The passage about not knowing when the owner of the house will return (Mark 13:32-37).

Many but not all Christians believe in a second coming. It makes sense in the context of the story of the Hebrew peoples (The Jews) and their eventual redemption trough the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies,

Matthew wrote five or ten years after Mark. He repeats pretty much everything Mark says but adds even more disclaimers about the time frame (e.g., Matthew 24:36-50) including changing the owner of the home coming back unexpectedly into the image of a thief in the night. (v 43).

I'm good with the author of Matthew evolving a more developed understanding of echatological concerns and his understanding of allegory in both His presentation of the Olivet discourse and account of the resurrection. Some Bible scholars are too. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I took the time to read through this and I believe Bart Ehrman has made many false claims.
His case was pretty well debunked as well.
Ehrman on Historicity Recap - Richard Carrier


Ehrmans book on Jesus is so misleading that in some way it lends credibility to the mythicist theory:

"...filled with factual errors, logical fallacies, and badly worded arguments. Moreover, it completely fails at its one explicit task: to effectively critique the arguments for Jesus being a mythical person.

Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic - Richard Carrier



But regarding the resurrection, further down in the above article Carrier touches on the fact that there were many demigod resurrections before Jesus and they also included personal salvation through baptism, struggles with Satan, 12 disciples and so on:

"I shouldn’t have to adduce passages such as, from Plutarch, “[about] Dionysus, Zagreus, Nyctelius, and Isodaetes, they narrate deaths and vanishings, followed by returns to life and resurrections” (Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 9.388f-389a). That looks pretty cut and dried to me. But it’s worse than that. Because for Romulus and Zalmoxis we undeniably have pre-Christian evidence that they actually die (on earth) and are actually raised from the dead (on earth) and physically visit their disciples (on earth). And likewise for Inanna, a clear-cut death-and-resurrection tale exists on clay tablets a thousand years before Christianity (she dies and rises in hell, but departs from and returns to the world above all the same)."


Later on some mistakes Ehrman made on denying baptism in Pagan cults:

We also know that something like baptism into eternal life was a feature of the cult of Bacchus-Dionysus, and we know this not only because Plato mentions it (Plato, Republic 364e-365a, where we’re told of Orphic libations “for the remission of sins” that secure one a better place in the afterlife), but also from actual pre-Christian inscriptions (that’s right, words actually carved in stone). See examples in Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Fortress 1975), pp. 275-76, n. 116. Both sources (Plato and inscriptions) also confirm the Bacchic belief that one could be baptized on behalf of someone who had already died and thus gain them a better position in the afterlife. It cannot be a coincidence that exactly the same thing, baptism for the dead, is attested as a Christian rite in Paul (1 Corinthians 15:29). We have hints of baptismal rituals in other cults (Tertullian, for example, in On Baptism 5, describes numerous pagan rituals of baptism for the remission of sins, clearly understanding it to be a common practice everywhere known). Sure, in many of these cases the baptism was part of a larger ritual (perhaps involving prayer or incense), but Christian baptisms were not free of their own ritual accoutrements, so those hardly matter to the point.

This also undermines Ehrman’s claim that there is no evidence that the death of Osiris (or any other god) “brought atonement for sin” (p. 26). We know Egyptian afterlife belief made the physical weight of sin a factor in deciding one’s placement in the afterlife, and that (as just shown above) baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washes away those sins and thus lightens the soul to obtain the best place in heaven. It is hard to imagine how this does not entail that the death and resurrection of Osiris somehow procured salvation through remission of sins (and clearly a similar belief had developed in Bacchic and other cults). One could perhaps get nitpicky as to what might be the exact theology of the process, but whatever the differences, the similarity remains: the death and resurrection of Osiris was clearly believed to make it possible for those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism to have their sins remitted. That belief predates Christianity. Ehrman is simply wrong to say otherwise. And the evidence for this is clear, indisputable, and mainstream. Which means his book is useless if you want to know the facts of this matter. Or any matter, apparently."
Giving the mythicist theory a strong probability of being true.


So Ehrmans position that Christianity wasn't a copy of the mystery cults because baptism, resurrection and sin-forgiving (among many other similarities) wasn't known until Christian scripture is completely false. Did he make it up to sell books to Christians or is he trying to convince himself that that mythology is true? I don't know?

Isn't Richard Carrier an atheist who believes that neither the biblical, nor historic Christ existed?

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

He is actually correct because the gospels start with the Greek phrase for "as told to me by" instead of the usual way to say "I am the author".

Tò katà Matthaīon euangélion; -The Gospel According to Matthew
So the gospel authors are not the same as the title.

Those are titles applied later to already existing anonymous works. None of the Gospel texts proper contain such a phrase.