Raising the Dead from their grave.

[Technosoul]

I recall two times when Jesus was reported to have brought people back who had died. One little girl (whom he said was only sleeping) and the other being a close relative of his.

Was it a miracle? Or is there some logical explaination that would debunk the use of wiccan magic?

Technosoul.

[Deut. 32.8]

The logical explanation is that it is an entirely baseless fable promulgated by a superstitious sect.

[Ken Carman]

It depends on whether the author(s) was telling truth or adding to the myth. According to most scholars I've read Mark is the only book most likely actually written by Mark. Authorship was rather loosely defined back then and there are many spots within the same book where the writing styles switch and the author(s) seem to be writing from a different historical perspective... like years later. Then there's text alteration/manipulation. I find it very unlikely that the text couldn't have been altered over the past 2000 years by religious leaders and by those who told the stories that eventually became the "origional" texts, and by those who so eagerly provide so many different theologically correct interpretations. How many versions of the bible are there? Many. Good News, King James, Catholic and many, many more. Every sect and even individual believer has their favorite.

Add to this that Jesus told many stories to make his point. Could his example have led to some of these tales being told about him, and later added, in the same manner by his followers?

I suppose those who believe this way would said the reality of any such specific miracles is less important than the lesson each and every tale is teaching.

Unless of course you believe that your favorite version(s) is literal. Then, of course, you should believe these tales as written.

What to I believe? I believe so many people have probably had their fingers stuck into this theological stew, so much has been added, subtracted and dragged out of the pot and destroyed over the years, we'll probably never unstir it to find the "truth." Perhaps, like the first "believer," truth is less important than any good lessons we may learn.

[Technosoul]

Hi Ken.

I would agree with each possiblity you suggested.

Such explainations would mean that Jesus was just another one of many teachers or preachers who had legends built up around them and some true accounts likewise recorded. Such would downplay any concept that Jesus was better then Buddha or John the Baptist because without some miracles or super powers how could anyone claim he was given divine authority by God over Moses and the others?
Or even his local Temple scribes?

Although such might be true we have millions of Christians who would never agree that Jesus is not speical or different then any other sage or person of wisdom. He would be like King Auther (spelling on last name?) who was a real king and a famous Commander and Chief but also a person with a lot of mythology surrounding his name. I doubt if the real knights of the round tabel had to slay real dragons.
But the symbolism would speack to us about overcoming personal obsticles in our life.

Even Geroge Washington had the myth about chopping down a Cherry tree.

So I would agree that if Jesus was anywhere near being famous for whatever reason that those mythologies would follow as part of the history.

Altough we do know that people can return after being medically dead but that is done before the body and brain has a chance to become useless, and often they can recall being conscious in a dream state or in a out-of-body experience - near death experience. Sometimea a kid can be dead under water for a while and then reconsituted to breathing and life again. I do not know if a really super good pychic that can talk to dead people could tell them to "come back into their body" again or not? That would indeed be something else, but who knows what the powers of the mind can do for sure?

Webster said "reality is often stranger rhen fiction" and he might have a point. Lost of novelty and paranormal things happen from time to time that just are not logical relative to the norm.

And so I leave the question still open, for additional people to comment.

Technosoul.

[Deut. 32.8]

Originally posted by Ken Carman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ken Carman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It depends on whether the author(s) was telling truth or adding to the myth. According to most scholars I've read Mark is the only book most likely actually written by Mark.[/b]

Which scholars? For that matter, which Mark? The widely acknowledged summary of scholarly consensus is found in Udo Schnelle's The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, about which the Publisher notes:

An introduction to the New Testament in classic format, Schnelle's book presents full and up-to-date information about the individual writings with respect to date, author, place of writing, structure of the document, current scholarships, themes and theological aims. The book, intended to supersede W. G. Kummel's introduction, informs the reader of all the important historical issues and describes the range of scholarly opinion and literature, preparing the reader to pass judgment. After providing an overview of the development of the New Testament canon, Schnelle then takes up, in turn: the letters of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels (including Q), Acts, the Deutero-Paulines, the Catholic letters, the Gospel of John, and Revelation. With extensive anglicized bibliographies.

Regarding gMk, Schnelle writes:

About 130 CE Papias of Hierapolis reports concerning Mark, Mark was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down accurately everything that he remembered of the words and deeds of the Lord. It was not, however, in order. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him. But later, as I said, he followed Peter, who adjusted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but with no intention of providing a connected presentation of the Lord's sayings. Thus Mark did nothing wrong by writing down some things as he remembered them. For he was careful not to omit anything of what he had heard, nor to repeat anything false. (Eusebius HE 3.39.15) Papias traces this tradition back to the presbyter John, claiming it was delivered to him by followers of the elders whom he had asked about traditions from the apostles. (cf. Eusebius HE 3.39.4) - ibid, pg. 199

So the "Father of Church History" Eusebius, writing in the 1st quarter of the 4th century CE, notes that Papias, writing 2nd century CE, claims an oral tradition concerning the author of gMk, writing in the 1st century CE. Note parenthetically that this is the same Eusebius who complained that Papias was "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Be that as it may, what does Schnelle have to say about the core assertion, i.e., that 'Mark' was the 'interpreter' of Peter:

Thus a decision cannot yet be made concerning the historical trustworthiness of this tradition, since no distinctive Petrine theology can be discerned behind the Gospel of Mark, nor does Peter play a role in it beyond that already given him in the pre-Markan tradition. No one would suppose thatthe figure of Peter stands behind the distinctive theology of the Gospel of Mark, if there were no Papius tradition! Nor can any recognizable connection between Pauline theology and the Gospel of Mark be determined. The second Gospel is thus the work of a Christian by the name of Mark, who is otherwise unknown to us. ... Mark's mother tongue seems to be Greek, for the characteristics of the Markan language do not point to Semitic influence, but corresponds to the style of Hellenistic folk literature and the literary Koine. Since Mark demonstrably writes for a Gentile church (cf. 3.4.4), he can be described as a Greek-speaking Gentile Christian who has a command of Aramaic, probably a native of Suria who grew to adulthood there. - ibid, pg. 200

Kirby, in his remarkably valuable Early Christian Writings, further undermines the case for John Mark of Jerusalem:

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)." - see Mark

What makes this all the more interresting is current consensus on the Marcan priority of the synoptics, i.e., the recognition that Matthew and Luke are heavily dependent upon Mark and [possibly] 'Q'.

Originally posted by Ken Carman@ Authorship was rather loosely defined back then and there are many spots within the same book where the writing styles switch and the author(s) seem to be writing from a different historical perspective... like years later. Then there's text alteration/manipulation.

Precisely.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ken Carman
Add to this that Jesus told many stories to make his point.[/quote]
Not exactly. It would be more correct to say that early Christian sect leaders wrote of someone telling stories decades earlier. There is little reason to assume that anyone named Yeshua actually said any of the things later attributed to him.

[Vee]

CPR anyone

[Vee]

the myth of arthur was based on two ppl as was the myth of merlin

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Deut. 32.8[QUOTE=Ken Carman Add to this that Jesus told many stories to make his point.

Not exactly. It would be more correct to say that early Christian sect leaders wrote of someone telling stories decades earlier. There is little reason to assume that anyone named Yeshua actually said any of the things later attributed to him.[/quote]

Wow. I found the info on Mark interesting. So much more expanded upon than my investigation many years ago.

I wasn't refering to any specific stories he may or may not have told. I was more commenting on the general assumption that he used fables and such to make his point... probably a common way for what we would refer to today as "street preachers" to preach back then. It's possible he didn't, if there even was a single "he," and the biblical Jesus wasn't actually the meshing of several historical characters during that time. I was speculating that his followers took that fable/storytelling tradition and injected in their rendering of what eventually was written down and became "the bible(s)." Essentially the life of "Jesus" became part of the storytelling/fable process rather than, as too many insist, being a perfect historical rendering.

[Deut. 32.8]

Originally posted by Vee, CPR anyone

Your point?

[Technosoul]

All this study would open up yet another question that would need some sort of answer, why would a number of different people want to create a mytholoical person based on the wanderings of a real person or worse, why would they make the whole thing up? What is the motive or reason for that? I could understand it if one guy was writing a story because he enjoyed writing stories but it seems that more then one person was involved which would have amounted to more of a conspiracy then anything else, although the other chapters might have been re-written versions of Matthew.

In other words did someone like Jesus make an important impact on the history of that area which later generated the story telling, or was the story telling the whole of it without any background person that it was based upon?

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[Vee]

Raising the dead is no miracle is my point.

[Technosoul]

"I belived I could hear warnings in the winds I was all a-buzz, knew something would happen but it never does".

[Deut. 32.8]

Originally posted by Technosoul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>..., why would a number of different people want to create a mytholoical person based on the wanderings of a real person ... ?[/b]

Why/how does any legend develop? The years and the geographic/cultural shift washes away the facts, and the void is filled with speculation and embellishment.

Originally posted by Technosoul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>... or worse, why would they make the whole thing up?[/b]

What "whole thing"? Neither Paul nor Mark know of the Virgin Birth, with its infanticide and magic star and wise men bringing gifts. Neither Paul nor the Synoptics know of raising Lazarus from the dead as told by John. Church Canon knows nothing of the little brat Jesus as depicted in the Infancy Gospels. What is this other than the process of myth accretion?

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul@
I could understand it if one guy was writing a story because he enjoyed writing stories but it seems that more then one person was involved which would have amounted to more of a conspiracy then anything else, although the other chapters might have been re-written versions of Matthew.[/quote]Since Marcan priority is the consensus among Biblical scholars, we would be talking about rewriting Mark, not Matthew. Such rewriting/embellishment is clear.

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul
In other words did someone like Jesus make an important impact on the history of that area which later generated the story telling, or was the story telling the whole of it without any background person that it was based upon?[/quote]It was a chaotic period in an environment and among a people that took magic for granted. The Essenes are but one example of the messianic sects populating the area. It is more than reasonable to presume (pending evidence to the contrary) that the stories/exploits of any number of cult leaders were conflated and redacted and, eventually, atributed to a single individual, much like the Pastorals now bear the name of Paul. Later, perhaps in the heat of polemics against both Jews and Pagans, the attributes of this individual grew to match those of the competing Gods.

Simultaneously, what began as an observant Jewish sect was becoming more and more a Gentile cult, freeing it of all the constraints once imposed by its Orthodox upbringing. Jesus/Yeshua, whatever he/they might have been, was now free to become God, even a 3-in-1 God. Stories, created or retold, could now take into account this (new-found) divinity. Whether the author of Matthew convinced himself of the Virgin Birth after reading Isaiah 7:14, or had it otherwise 'revealed' and sought to invoke Isaiah as prooftext, the Virgin Birth and a host of other miracles were now available for promoting the Church.

[Technosoul]

I can understand the potentials of what you outlined but still it seems to be missing a logical "why"? But then I might be asking for too much. I am sure people did not need a big motivation to produce a Spiderman comic book, and later on a movie. We have many such super-heros. If todays history was washed away perhaps a million years from now someone would find some old Spiderman book and a new religion would be born (in fact, if the Force is with you then you might already belong to the new Starwars religion).

I read the chapters about the childhood of Jesus that were not added to the "authorized" Bible now being used.

I have read books that claim that many people wrote "in the name" of Moses, which was a common practice.

And the stories could have been adaptations of anicent pagan observations. Example: If someone saw a bear hibernating in a cave they might think the bear was dead, because during hiberation the body slows down more then just when something is sleeping, and then they might have seen the bear come out of the cave "alive again" in springtime around Easter and so "bear cult" might have been started to find out how bears could overcome death in a cave (as they did not comprehend anything about the processes of hiberation), they might have put on plays dressing up like the bear in fur to re-act the death and resurection story and then over time the story ended up being a person and no longer about the bear.

And likewise, the snakes also join each other in caves to hibernate during winter and they come to life again in springtime, which tied into the pagan stories about the celebration of springtime as the re-birthing of nature from the winter's tomb. And in some stories about Jesus he was put into a cave and he went into the underworld and got the "keys" of eternal life from the "serpent" and overcome death much like the snakes survive winter due to hibernation. So we can see a link, or some simular concepts, concerning the ritual to burry people in a cave and the anicent nature stories about bears or snakes hibernating in caves. Whatcha think?

Technosoul.

[voyager]

Perhaps they were not dead, coma or catatonic state. Myths of this sort are common througout the area in this time period. Egipt had Isis, stories of finding a child in a river by a noble (Mosis) come from Mesopotamia.

[Technosoul]

Voyager
I thought all the Bible people had these reporters following them around from their birth to their death taking factual notes of each happening, gee wiz.

Now even Jesus said the girl was "only sleeping" and so the others might have errored thinking she was dead. (Kids can do the darnest things).

People in India can go into a deep trance and slow down the heart beat, etc. to the point where most doctors without intraments would think they were dead. Faking death then is a possibilty.

But his relative was said to be dead and "stinking in the grave" for days, and he was wrapped in mummy cloth and everything. (the grave was a cave with a rock to cover the entrance).

However was he raised from the dead only to die again? If he was brought back and saved from death then is he still walking around on the earth someplace unknown to us? And if overcoming phsyical death to gain eternal life is an objective then why talk about an afterlife in heaven? Why not have eternal life here on planet earth when the "kingdom" comes here?

Now two women would be grinding away and one would be taken and the other left behind.

Where would the taken go?

Where the vultures gather. (Eagles do not gather in flocks).

So who wants to be taken if they beocome food for the vultures, better be the one left behind I would think.

Jesus told them "some of you standing here will see all my predictions come to pass". Meaning that some two thousand years ago all bibilical prediction were fulfilled.

Such statements must be so or not so, otherwise we are left with interpretations that are meaningless for any kind of reality other then those imagined by faith.

Technosoul.