• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

They didn't recognize resurrected Jesus

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
This element of the Resurrection always confused me. That when they met Jesus, post-mortem, he looked different.
Why would they specify this?

You don't see this in modern stories. No matter how convincing the fake death was, or the real death before the regeneration or whatever, people always recognize the actor when they step back in the room. Lots of screaming, maybe accusations, "You're supposed to be dead!" or "I watched you die!" and so on, but no 'Do i know you?'

Someone suggested that Jesus made himself look different, because there were people that wanted him dead, or dead-er, anyway. But that's kinda stupid. Because apparently he still had the HOLES from the nails and the spear in his side. The first Stigmata. Kind of hard to claim that's from walking into a door or cutting yourself while shaving.

So, why bring this up, multiple times, in the narrative? Especially from an atheist point of view, that it's just a tale being told, how does this add to the story?

But i was reading the memoirs of a forensic anthropologist. She talks about the fourth dead body she ever saw (after a few dissections), but the first corpse of a person she'd known in life. Her uncle. And weirdly, she didn't recognize him in the casket. Seems to be a common occurrence in her experience. a lot of people's faces are drastically different in death. Less animated. Looking at some of the people around me, those with ready smiles, or near-permanent scowls, i can accept this. Mr. Brown, at peace, will not look like Mr. Brown any more.

I haven't experienced this, Grandpa looked like Grandpa. But Dr. Black has argued with colleagues who are surprised when relatives don't recognize their dead.

Which got me to wondering, maybe it was just accepted by the authors of The Books that death changed your looks? Maybe everyone knew this, it was an established meme. Not in terms of muscle tone or blood pressure going away, just 'you die you differ.'

So the change in appearance for Risen Jesus was a specific detail to make it clear, he didn't just hide for three days. He died, and did the reverse-death-mask thing.
A detail to make the death scene more authentic against the contemporary understanding of death's effects.
 

southernhybrid

Well-known member
Interesting thoughts, but I personally think that the entire story was made up. Maybe there was some charismatic guy who went by the name of Jesus and perhaps he wasn't liked by those in power. After all, he was pretty far left and the aristocrats certainly didn't want to give up their wealth, feed the poor or heal the sick. We can see that social crisis in today's world, but I digress. Back to Jesus...

So, assuming that this Jesus guy who was so charismatic that people believed. he could perform miracles, a bit like the Trump cultists believing that their idol is god-like. Anyway, if the far left Jesus guy was executed by those in power, I assume that his followers had an extremely difficult time accepting this.

It's sort of like Elvis. Rational people who weren't Elvis fanatics but lived through that era, know that Elvis is dead. I was a child during the Elvis fanaticism. It was crazy. Since his death, large numbers of his fans have insisted that they've seen him alive. He never died! Or maybe some even believe that he survived death or they saw his spirit. Point being....this type of myth has been around for a long time. I'm not expert in the field of mythology, but I've read enough to know that myths are often similar, and repetitious.

If there was a Jesus like the one in the Bible, he died, but his closest cultists couldn't accept that. They thought he was supernatural, so they invented a story that promoted the idea that he was dead for three days and then he rose from the dead and was swept up into heaven magically. Of course he was wearing a spotless flowing white robe and a halo

Btw, I've never seen anyone I knew who didn't look like themselves in their coffin. Sure, they were pale and lifeless, but that's because they were dead!

To me, the entire story is obvious mythology.

It would be interesting and fun to read what others think about why or how the Jesus myth was created and became so popular.
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
I like the part in John 20 where Jesus apparently walks through a locked door (or materializes in a locked room -- hard to tell), which as you might guess APPEARS IN NO OTHER GOSPEL. (He suddenly stands among them in Luke 24, but there's no mention of a locked door.) We are so lucky there were no zombie movies when John was writing (apparently very few movies of any kind), as he might have borrowed some memes from that source and we'd have more-than-symbolic flesh eating and centurions trying to spike Jesus through the brain.
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
(Jesus appears out of thin air)
Centurion1: Jesus Christ!
Jesus: Well, hello to you, too.
C1: No, sorry, meant that as an expression of shock, fear, surprise.
J: Oh.
C2: You're dead.
J: Not anymore! The Good News (c) is that everlasting life is available.
C1: Pull the other one. You died. You're back. That's Undead, not life everlasting.
C2: Marcus Absent stabbed you in the side.
J: Right! Right! Here's the scar!
C1: That's not a scar, that's an open wound.
C2: An open, MORTAL wound.
J: Um...
C1: What's for zombies? Wooden stakes an' garlic?
C2: That's Vampires. We need silver.
C1: That's werewolves! We need holy water and a pair of-
J: You fucking idiots! You defeat zombies by filling their mouth with salt and sewing their lips shut.
C2: Salt? You priced salt recently?
J: I suppose you could spike the brain...
(Swords are drawn, centurions approach.)
J: Oh, Christ.
 

funinspace

Well-known member
It's sort of like Elvis. Rational people who weren't Elvis fanatics but lived through that era, know that Elvis is dead. I was a child during the Elvis fanaticism. It was crazy. Since his death, large numbers of his fans have insisted that they've seen him alive. He never died!
LOL...now I have "If Dirt Were Dollars" ringing in my head: "I saw jesus on the plane...or maybe it was elvis. You know, they kinda look the same".

All I remember is the fat old (to an early teen) has been Elvis, then again I was tuned into "News of the World" in 1977...
 

OLDMAN

Well-known member
It shows exactly what it was...myth building. They spent the evening talking with a stranger and after he left they realized "hey, that was Jesus our dead leader". I think they decided this based on his words he had spoken. But I can't be bothered to reread it. Lazy.
 

James Brown

Well-known member
It is rather curious that every post-resurrection appearance involves a case of mistaken identity. Even from the woman who was his lover|wife|biggest crush, depending on whom you ask.
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
Yes, at John 20:15, Mary Madgdalene apparently sees the risen Jesus but thinks he is... the gardener. (A little steretypical, maybe -- a gardener named Jesus.) I think the scholars are right, Mary M. gets a bum rap of being a reformed whore. For all we know, she was like the ladies who volunteer at the church office these days. She might have kept a set of index cards for Jesus. And maybe her eyesight wasn't too good. Or maybe it really was the gardener, although I'll call him Carlos, and he was stringing her along, just to be a dick.
 

WAB

Banned
Yes, at John 20:15, Mary Madgdalene apparently sees the risen Jesus but thinks he is... the gardener. (A little steretypical, maybe -- a gardener named Jesus.) I think the scholars are right, Mary M. gets a bum rap of being a reformed whore. For all we know, she was like the ladies who volunteer at the church office these days. She might have kept a set of index cards for Jesus. And maybe her eyesight wasn't too good. Or maybe it really was the gardener, although I'll call him Carlos, and he was stringing her along, just to be a dick.

Yeah, Carlos!!!!!!!! Why not Javier, or Raul?!!!!!!!! Huh???!!!!1!!! Ya fascist stereotypist...typer..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1! Not like it'd be some....some CRACKER named Rupert!!!!!!!!!!!!! or Chauncey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...lessen he was some reetart!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!


:rimshot:
 

DBT

Well-known member
Jesus believed to be in spirit form possessing someone's body, manifesting stigmata while in the borrowed body? Kind of like demon possession, only in a Divinely Sanctioned Form?
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
Jesus believed to be in spirit form possessing someone's body, manifesting stigmata while in the borrowed body? Kind of like demon possession, only in a Divinely Sanctioned Form?

More that, having ascended to the pleroma, he was no longer constrained by the natural limitations of matter, manifesting in it but not imprisoned by it. All oppositions are illusory when viewed from the standpoint of the One, and that includes the distinction we mortal fools try to make between matter and spirit. You likely weren't taught Christianity by committed Neoplatonists. But the early church documents, Gospels included, were written with a Platonic perspective forming many of their base assumptions about the world.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
I think it was Judas, in cosplay, trying to convince the guys that Jesus isn’t really dead so they’ll forgive him and let him back at cards night on Wednesday.
That’s why they didn’t recognize him - all that make-up.
And that’s why they didn’t see him again, becuase Judas had to change his clothes and wash up to be back for family dinner night, or his mom would have asked all the guys where he was and the jig would be up.
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
I think it was Judas, in cosplay, trying to convince the guys that Jesus isn’t really dead so they’ll forgive him and let him back at cards night on Wednesday.
That’s why they didn’t recognize him - all that make-up.
And that’s why they didn’t see him again, becuase Judas had to change his clothes and wash up to be back for family dinner night, or his mom would have asked all the guys where he was and the jig would be up.

Now that you say it that should have been an obvious possibility.
 

WAB

Banned
I think it was Judas, in cosplay, trying to convince the guys that Jesus isn’t really dead so they’ll forgive him and let him back at cards night on Wednesday.
That’s why they didn’t recognize him - all that make-up.
And that’s why they didn’t see him again, becuase Judas had to change his clothes and wash up to be back for family dinner night, or his mom would have asked all the guys where he was and the jig would be up.

Now that you say it that should have been an obvious possibility.

Judas always makes me wonder about the Trinity concept (ie that Jesus and God, while being distinct, are really the same...which is a mind-boggler in itself, not to mention Christ's behavior in Gethsemane, where He pleads with God to relieve Him of the charge of being crucified. He was obviously scared to death. Whether there was a real Jesus or not, He is obviously frightened in the gospel accounts. Not to mention the mysterious, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" remark, which would be inconceivable if Jesus and God were one and the same - lessen His partly human brain had made Him temporarily delerious...which would imply a literal abandonment of God the Father from Jesus and, IMO, make the crucifixion even more horrible. If He knew he was going to resurrect with absolute certainty, then He would at least have had that consolation; if he was just a biological mortal man [which is most likely] then he would have been like all the others, dying horribly, with no certainty of after-life):

Iff Jesus was a part of God, or in some way God Themself (Their self? Themselves?), then He would have known all about Judas, and Judas could be safely absolved of responsibility, being that there was nothing he could do to alter his fate. Even if he only believed that he was choosing of his own free will, it would have been an illusion, and who could blame anyone for anything if it were true that they could not possibly have acted other than the way they did? Certainly not God, who is supposed to be perfect, and merciful.

The whole concept of hell and damnation is absurdly evil anyway, on its face, and Iff Jesus taught that hell was a real place, not just a state of mind as some apologists contend, and that eternal damnation meant exactly that: eternal suffering and torment - then he was a mortal man and certainly not divine in the sense that he was literally fathered by God.

Iff hell and eternal suffering, physical AND mental, is REALLY true, then our universe is in the grip of a hostile and sadistic being, not one even remotely capable of love and mercy. And in that case, everyone is fucked.

What I truly think is that the universe (or what we know of it for sure) is terribly hostile, unbelievably and immeasurably unfair, and essentially a gigantic clusterfuck for any thinking, feeling, entity that is not extreeeeeeeeeeeeeemely lucky.

But it is not that way intentionally.

Which is why I would prefer non-existence over having to do all this shit over again.
 
Last edited:

steve_bank

Well-known member
As a Christian kid I was told the Trinity is a mystery. ‘God the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost’. I thought that came from Nicaea.

From a book I read on Islam it was said that historically it was common to spread a prophesy and then have someone show up to fulfill it. It was happening at the time of the gospels, people claiming to be the Jewish messiah.

That somebody stepped in to claim to be the resurrected Jesus is not entirely implausible. In our allegedly educated enlightened age we see such religious chicanery all the time. And people buy it.

As to the alleged betrayal by Judas, without that the Jesus dies to save the world narrative fails.

As fiction Judas is important to the plot. He kicks off the last chapter.
 

WAB

Banned
As a Christian kid I was told the Trinity is a mystery. ‘God the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost’. I thought that came from Nicaea.

From a book I read on Islam it was said that historically it was common to spread a prophesy and then have someone show up to fulfill it. It was happening at the time of the gospels, people claiming to be the Jewish messiah.

That somebody stepped in to claim to be the resurrected Jesus is not entirely implausible. In our allegedly educated enlightened age we see such religious chicanery all the time. And people buy it.

As to the alleged betrayal by Judas, without that the Jesus dies to save the world narrative fails.

As fiction Judas is important to the plot. He kicks off the last chapter.

Agreed.
 

DBT

Well-known member
If the purpose of Jesus was to die for the sins of the world, rather than a betrayal, the role of Judas was to help fulfill the mission, playing his role in the Divine Drama.
 

WAB

Banned
If the purpose of Jesus was to die for the sins of the world, rather than a betrayal, the role of Judas was to help fulfill the mission, playing his role in the Divine Drama.

Exactly!

Which is why, if the gospel accounts are true, and if the trinity theory (which came later) is factual and true and REAL, then Judas could not be responsible for taking the 30 pieces of silver and betraying the Lord, which means quite a few things:

  • Judas, like virtually every other living, conscious entity, at least on Earth, if not in the whole dang universe, is fucked, no matter what.
  • God, if They are omnimax (all powerful, present everywhere, and all knowing: omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient [knowing whatever there is that can be known, meaning that Calvin's manifestly frightening conception of God was correct: preordination, predestination, all true]), and if They are the Creator and sustainer of everything that exists: uncreated, the Prime, Unmovable Mover, etc; and if They are actively involved with every facet of every single thing or event that happens in the universe - deep breath...is evil: a malignant, horribly sadistic being. Which means every living, conscious human is fucked. Assuming this version of god would not send any creature to hell if they could literally NOT accept Christ as their lord and savior. It seems silly to even bring it up, the idea being so monstrous, but I believe there are true believers who think that infants, or people with serious cognitive disablilities, even people who lived BEFORE Jesus was born, wind up in hell, because they were not baptized.
  • Determinism (God or no god), if true, meaning that there is literally no possibility of choosing to do otherwise in ANY instance, means that no animal, human or chipmunk or beetle, is responsible for what they do.
 

Learner

Well-known member
It may not be so bad, depending how one sees it. :)

But I also agree too that he played his 'role' in the narrative, so to speak. A role.. he chose for himself! Judas is understood in context to be a reprobate ( he didn't ask for forgiveness etc.).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

DBT

Well-known member
It may not be so bad, depending how one sees it. :)

But I also agree too that he played his 'role' in the narrative, so to speak. A role.. he chose for himself! Judas is understood in context to be a reprobate ( he didn't ask for forgiveness etc.).

Did they all choose their own roles? Thomas decided to play the 'doubting Thomas,' Judas the betrayer,' Peter the Rock, etc?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Learner

Well-known member
It may not be so bad, depending how one sees it. :)

But I also agree too that he played his 'role' in the narrative, so to speak. A role.. he chose for himself! Judas is understood in context to be a reprobate ( he didn't ask for forgiveness etc.).

Did they all choose their own roles? Thomas decided to play the 'doubting Thomas,' Judas the betrayer,' Peter the Rock, etc?

What ever roles they ended up with... they had all made the decision to follow Jesus on their own accord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
It may not be so bad, depending how one sees it. :)

But I also agree too that he played his 'role' in the narrative, so to speak. A role.. he chose for himself! Judas is understood in context to be a reprobate ( he didn't ask for forgiveness etc.).

Did they all choose their own roles? Thomas decided to play the 'doubting Thomas,' Judas the betrayer,' Peter the Rock, etc?

What ever roles they ended up with... they had all made the decision to follow Jesus on their own accord.

Oh, please. The disciples are less realistic than Jesus.

Trump iterally has followers already convinced he can pull off miracles. Praying to him.
Every one of the Christ's followers argued with him EVERY miracle.
No one can do that!
I can.
No way!
Way!
Nope!
...Jesus does his thing...
Whoa! You really ARE God!
Toldja.

Repeat next miracle.... real people wpild have begun accepting his claims, eventually.
 

WAB

Banned
It may not be so bad, depending how one sees it. :)

But I also agree too that he played his 'role' in the narrative, so to speak. A role.. he chose for himself! Judas is understood in context to be a reprobate ( he didn't ask for forgiveness etc.).

Did they all choose their own roles? Thomas decided to play the 'doubting Thomas,' Judas the betrayer,' Peter the Rock, etc?

What ever roles they ended up with... they had all made the decision to follow Jesus on their own accord.

Okay, but did God preordain that they would make that decision? Which means before they were born, as you know.

In light of omniscience, I can kinda/sorta work my brain around a being knowing what another being will do in the future, based on probability and magnitude: scientists can predict what a rat will do after a gazillion (give or take a few) experiments, though they cannot be absolutely certain that one rat (after the first gazillion) will do what they predict. But an omniscient being would know, with absolute certainty.

In light of omnipotence, God can influence anyone anywhere, at anytime (see below), in the universe; so, I cannot remove God from responsibility for whatever happens, anywhere, to anyone or anything.

In light of omnipresence, meaning, I believe, that God is literally in ALL places, at ALL times, meaning all individuals, any region on Earth, and any region or atom or inch of empty space in the universe, anywhere, all the time, simultaneously, I cannot remove God from responsibility for whatever happens, anywhere, to anyone or anything, since God is omnipotent (see above).

The main problem, which I left out of my last comment (because I am terribly forgetful and a numbnuts :facepalm: ), is the idea of omnibenevolence. If God is all loving, all forgiving, all merciful, then He She or They, what or whoever, cannot be less loving, less forgiving, and less merciful than I am, one of his pitiful creatures. If I am aghast at the idea of a superior being purposefully and autonomously causing another being to suffer FOREVER, with no prior reason or event having wholly caused and determined it (which such a being would be capable of given an ordinary layman's conception of free will), then an omnibenevolent entity would be far more aghast than I could ever be, or ought to be, in my tiny little bleeding-hearted opinion.

I will pass over* (get it?) my idea of omnijokescience (OM/neh/JOKE/shints): the idea that God MUST be the funniest being in the entire universe. If God is infinite, and contains infinite attributes (see Spinoza, below), then God is necessarily much funnier than I am, and even funnier than Zero Mostel, Steve Martin, Richard Prior, or even Brian Regan. Right? And he must absofrigginlutely be funnier than Tom Brokaw, the Pope (any of 'em, except perhaps Pope Hilarious) or the wretchedly unfunny Bill Maher. Right? :D

Of course, I could be utterly wrong, and some super-duper theological wizard of a human has this all figured out and has explained it in detail, understandable to all - which I imagine such a great wizard of theology ought to do, to the best of their ability, lessen the stupid folk and the various numbnutses of the world have it bass-ackwards, and could potentially influence the innocent. But if such a person exists - and I have read a lot of apologists, Craig and Plantinga, and many others - I am as yet unaware of such a person.

I do think there is a person I know of who explained his conception of God in a way that geniuses and numbnutses alike could understand, if they bothered to read his work closely, and that person was Spinoza. Naturally, there is a great deal of division among scholars about what exactly that conception was, even among Spinozists.. But this is inevitable.

Einstein famously said, "I believe in the God of Spinoza"; but that didn't make him a theist, as some like to claim. Or a Spinozist, for that matter.

The philosopher Hegel famously said, "Spinoza wrote the last indisputable Latin masterpiece, and one in which the refined conceptions of medieval philosophy are finally turned against themselves and destroyed entirely. The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."

Many people insist that Spinoza was an atheist, that his conception of God was driven primarily by the concern that he could have been killed for being an atheist. But he insisted that he was not an atheist, and if one reads his letters in particular, one can see how busily he goes about defending his God concept. Even to close friends who so much as intimated it, he could get fiery, but he was never shaken, and never swerved from his ideas.

As a Jew, he knew Hebrew inside and out, even wrote a book on it; he wrote in Latin and Dutch as well. He was offered a chair at a university, but declined. He made his living as a lens-grinder, because he wanted to devote as much time and mental energy to his writing. He was not interested in gaining wealth, though he understood and declaimed the value of money and the importance of free trade. He was not a Christian, but he defended and explained the gospels in his own way: without prejudice, and without fear.



*Crap, I didn't pass over it at all!
 
Last edited:

DBT

Well-known member
It may not be so bad, depending how one sees it. :)

But I also agree too that he played his 'role' in the narrative, so to speak. A role.. he chose for himself! Judas is understood in context to be a reprobate ( he didn't ask for forgiveness etc.).

Did they all choose their own roles? Thomas decided to play the 'doubting Thomas,' Judas the betrayer,' Peter the Rock, etc?

What ever roles they ended up with... they had all made the decision to follow Jesus on their own accord.

"Ending up with" isn't exactly a case of choosing to play the role of Judas the traitor (committing suicide), Thomas the doubter, etc.....because none of them would have actually known what they were getting into.
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
Learner seems to know the why f peole mentioned briefly in an old short text. How des one derive knowledge of exactly who those pole were and why they did what they did?

This line kicked off by Rea reinforces the idea of the gospels as intentional fiction. It reads like soap opera. W know where to cheer and where to cry.

I keep coming back to our modern docu-drama. Loosely based on some general facts and a lot of literary license. Fabricated composite characters to create a narrative. The movies Cleopatra and 10 Commandments.
 

Learner

Well-known member
What ever roles they ended up with... they had all made the decision to follow Jesus on their own accord.

"Ending up with" isn't exactly a case of choosing to play the role of Judas the traitor (committing suicide), Thomas the doubter, etc.....because none of them would have actually known what they were getting into.

I'd say it's more like... "Judas 'did not forsee' that there'd be 30 pieces of silver offered to him to betray Jesus, from the start." He chose to accept the 30 pieces of silver when that moment of time came up later.

It is easily read that the deciples knew they'd be on a tough road following Jesus. The roles as we are defining or putting it here, are simply decision making situations, as we read on, resulted from the everyday interactions and experience throughout their journey.
 

DBT

Well-known member
What ever roles they ended up with... they had all made the decision to follow Jesus on their own accord.

"Ending up with" isn't exactly a case of choosing to play the role of Judas the traitor (committing suicide), Thomas the doubter, etc.....because none of them would have actually known what they were getting into.

I'd say it's more like... "Judas 'did not forsee' that there'd be 30 pieces of silver offered to him to betray Jesus, from the start." He chose to accept the 30 pieces of silver when that moment of time came up later.

It is easily read that the deciples knew they'd be on a tough road following Jesus. The roles as we are defining or putting it here, are simply decision making situations, as we read on, resulted from the everyday interactions and experience throughout their journey.

Actors, having access to a script, understanding the play and their role in it, are able to choose to play their part in the Play, or decline. They have the information to make an informed decision. The disciples as participants in a drama that was not of their own choosing had no idea of where their decision to follow Jesus would take them.
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
(As long as we're pretending this stuff is real...) What about the 2000 Gadarene swine that got possessed and jumped into the sea? Free will? Predestination? And, if they could be possessed by evil spirits, could they also be sent to hell? In that case, would hell become one big BBQ?
 

WAB

Banned
(As long as we're pretending this stuff is real...) What about the 2000 Gadarene swine that got possessed and jumped into the sea? Free will? Predestination? And, if they could be possessed by evil spirits, could they also be sent to hell? In that case, would hell become one big BBQ?

"Look, swine have a cloven foot and don't eat the cud, hence, hell, no? It's all in the manual. People in hell gotta eat, or am I wrong? Of course I'm not wrong...Incidentally I got two extra pieces corduroy..."
 

DBT

Well-known member
Judas: I have decided to follow Jesus, betray him and hang myself as a finale, geat Play, just love my part in it.
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
And, if they could be possessed by evil spirits, could they also be sent to hell?

Imagine the devil at Processing & Sorting. 2000 pigs show up inside of six minutes.
Their sin: convenient proximity.

He's looking at them, and then his clipboard, then the pigs, then keys a mike, says, 'I need a supervisor down here.'
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
And, if they could be possessed by evil spirits, could they also be sent to hell?

Imagine the devil at Processing & Sorting. 2000 pigs show up inside of six minutes.
Their sin: convenient proximity.

He's looking at them, and then his clipboard, then the pigs, then keys a mike, says, 'I need a supervisor down here.'

Or, to the pigs: 'Please have a seat over there. We will be with you shortly.' And eons pass....because it's hell.
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
And, if they could be possessed by evil spirits, could they also be sent to hell?

Imagine the devil at Processing & Sorting. 2000 pigs show up inside of six minutes.
Their sin: convenient proximity.

He's looking at them, and then his clipboard, then the pigs, then keys a mike, says, 'I need a supervisor down here.'

Or, to the pigs: 'Please have a seat over there. We will be with you shortly.' And eons pass....because it's hell.

Hey, if the choice is Hell or Hell's waiting room....
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
If the purpose of Jesus was to die for the sins of the world, rather than a betrayal, the role of Judas was to help fulfill the mission, playing his role in the Divine Drama.

Exactly!

Which is why, if the gospel accounts are true, and if the trinity theory (which came later) is factual and true and REAL, then Judas could not be responsible for taking the 30 pieces of silver and betraying the Lord, which means quite a few things:

  • Judas, like virtually every other living, conscious entity, at least on Earth, if not in the whole dang universe, is fucked, no matter what.
  • God, if They are omnimax (all powerful, present everywhere, and all knowing: omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient [knowing whatever there is that can be known, meaning that Calvin's manifestly frightening conception of God was correct: preordination, predestination, all true]), and if They are the Creator and sustainer of everything that exists: uncreated, the Prime, Unmovable Mover, etc; and if They are actively involved with every facet of every single thing or event that happens in the universe - deep breath...is evil: a malignant, horribly sadistic being. Which means every living, conscious human is fucked. Assuming this version of god would not send any creature to hell if they could literally NOT accept Christ as their lord and savior. It seems silly to even bring it up, the idea being so monstrous, but I believe there are true believers who think that infants, or people with serious cognitive disablilities, even people who lived BEFORE Jesus was born, wind up in hell, because they were not baptized.
  • Determinism (God or no god), if true, meaning that there is literally no possibility of choosing to do otherwise in ANY instance, means that no animal, human or chipmunk or beetle, is responsible for what they do.

Sure. But there's no point worrying about it, because if strict determinism is correct, then people have no choice but to act as though they have free will, and no choice but to believe in freedom of will should they do so.

The consequences of strict determinism include the unavoidable fact that there can be no fairness, nor any consideration of the consequences of determinism by anyone who is not already destined to consider those consequences.

If a person doesn't believe in strict determinism, then either they are correct to do so, or are completely blameless for their error. Pascal's Wager, eat your heart out. I don't believe in strict determinism because that disbelief can only be either correct, or not in any way my fault. ;)
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Learner seems to know the why f peole mentioned briefly in an old short text. How des one derive knowledge of exactly who those pole were and why they did what they did?

This line kicked off by Rea reinforces the idea of the gospels as intentional fiction. It reads like soap opera. W know where to cheer and where to cry.

I keep coming back to our modern docu-drama. Loosely based on some general facts and a lot of literary license. Fabricated composite characters to create a narrative. The movies Cleopatra and 10 Commandments.

Exactly. You can make things happen in a script that are impossible in reality. That's the power and the draw of fiction. We never outgrow our desire and need for fantasy.

That the story characters didn't recognize Jesus after he came back to life is a literary device meant to elicit awe and astonishment in the reader.

I've been to funerals where the deceased didn't look like the real deal. But the deceased was deceased. I didn't meet someone in the grocery store that after a few words I recognized as the person I buried three days ago.
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
A description of the gospels I heard is embellished promotional literature for new converts.

We only have to look at fake news today. Some years back my cable company got things switched wrong and I was getting Indian and Egyptian TV.

On what appeared to be an Indian breaking news segment someone appears to be feeding a holy statue and the food disappearing into the mouth. An Indian on the forum said that was common.

Imagine what it was like 2000 years ago. No science and all things were mysterious. Little written communications and news propagating by mouth.

The resurrection as a intentional religious hoax sounds plausible.

As a fable 'Doubting Thomas' would be a fictional character to make a point on faith.
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
So who did recognize JC, straight off? The people who saw the face of Jesus in.....
> a tortilla in New Mexico (1977)
> the stains on a soybean oil tank outside of Fostoria, Ohio (1986)
> cheese toast in Inman, SC, in 2009
> shower mold in an unscrubbed shower in Splendora, TX (2012)
> a splash of bird droppings on a man's windshield in Brooklyn, OH (2013)
And many, many similar sightings -- there must be a cantina full of taco and tortilla sightings. It's a phenomenon called face pareidolia. Testimony to the endless suggestibility of sign seekers. You can see these images and more on google. The Splendora shower is hard to take. Bird poop just happens, but that shower is seriously f'd up.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Oh, please. The disciples are less realistic than Jesus.

Trump iterally has followers already convinced he can pull off miracles. Praying to him.
Every one of the Christ's followers argued with him EVERY miracle.
No one can do that!
I can.
No way!
Way!
Nope!
...Jesus does his thing...
Whoa! You really ARE God!
Toldja.

Repeat next miracle.... real people wpild have begun accepting his claims, eventually.

Many Gospel details are embellishments to counter skeptics. Because the disciples doubted, a doubting reader can think "Those guys were not gullible. But they did eventually accept the Miracles."
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
"... But they did eventually accept the Miracles."
Only on seeing them. Direct eyewitness observation. Not faith, like we're asked for, based on fourth- or fiftieth-hand accounts.

If nothing else, this proves the gospels were not written by witnesses. Matthew wpuld DEFINITELY have shaded the narrative.
...and Thomas, and Mark, were like, 'No WAY!'
And Jesus was all, 'Way.'
And Peter and Simon were still, 'No way!'
And Jesus was all, 'Way.'
And Matthew was pretty, 'Maybe?'
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
What were the literacy rates like in the day, and would the apostles have been literate enough to actually make a decent record of events? How many people in general were literate enough to write detailed observations?

The more I think bout it the more it seems the gospels were outright fabrications not just embellishments.

To understand the social dynamics of how a fabrication becomes aken as truth we only have to look at Trump and UFOs.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
What were the literacy rates like in the day, and would the apostles have been literate enough to actually make a decent record of events? How many people in general were literate enough to write detailed observations?

Like most of the ancient world, most people made use of a scribe class, regardless of their literacy level. Only the wealthy received formal training in language skills otherwise. It was predominately an oral culture in most respects, and we possess very few surviving manuscripts that can be dated and sourced to 1st c. Palestine. The only explicitly historical works we now possess from or about the time period are the Christian corpus and the works of Josephus.
 

WAB

Banned
It has always perplexed me that there are virtually no accounts of Christ's physical appearance. There is the Transfiguration, consistent, I believe, in all of the gospels (I could be wrong - long time since I have read them), where Jesus physically transforms into His true form of radiant, god-like beauty and power. I assume this means His appearance was not remarkable ordinarily, which makes one wonder why Jesus is portrayed as very handsome, even beautiful, in so much Western art, and in film. Beyond silly was choosing Jeffrey Hunter to play Jesus, because if Jesus actually looked that good there almost MUST have been some reference to it? One would imagine. Von Sydow was a great actor but no great looker, but others who portrayed Christ in TV and film were good looking. The only one, as I recall, who was actually homely, was Willem Dafoe.

Even more silly is choosing white men to play Jesus. Or the almost universal tendency to portray Him in art as caucasion. Silly, and no doubt offensive to middle eastern people (and rightfully so).

Perhaps Jesus really was a spaceman, a humanoid alien, or some person from the future? Hence using the word "saved" - as in saved to a super duper hard drive? Be a good person, and live eternally, because your noodle will be mapped and uploaded. ? Seems utterly unlikely, but not completely implausible. Dropped off in the desert because aliens seem to like the desert? Oh, hell, I don't actually believe it - but it's interesting to think about.
 

steve_bank

Well-known member
I believe there is a passage that describes JC as bronze skinned and black haired.

Given that real literacy was for the wealthy, the question then is who wrote the gospels and who was the targey audiance give low literacy rates. They reflect Jewish themes not Greek or Roman.

The idea of Jesus as son of god was blasphemous. A serious Jewish crime.

I suspect a Roman writer would be facing issues with Roman rule over claims of a human-god.

What in mythology would be the antecedent from any mythology for the resurrection? Pharos went to an eternal afterlfe, I think.

I saw something about A Jewish cemetery in Israel across form a gate through which the resurrected dead would walk. In the report the gate was actually n Arab territory and they erected a brick wall in front of the gate for spite.
 

DBT

Well-known member
Then the disagreement between Paul and Peter on theology. Peter presumably having known Jesus/Yeshuah personally, should have known better.....plus Paul being ignorant of events that are described in the Gospels.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
I believe there is a passage that describes JC as bronze skinned and black haired.
Nope.

Given that real literacy was for the wealthy, the question then is who wrote the gospels and who was the targey audiance give low literacy rates.
You're assuming that they were meant to be read in private as a book, as opposed to listened to in a weekly communal liturgical setting as they have been throughout all of Christian recorded history.

They reflect Jewish themes not Greek or Roman.
Highly, highly debatable.

The idea of Jesus as son of god was blasphemous. A serious Jewish crime.
"Son of god" = Angel, in most of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I suspect a Roman writer would be facing issues with Roman rule over claims of a human-god.
Why? The Roman pantheon was replete with half-human demigods.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
"... But they did eventually accept the Miracles."
Only on seeing them. Direct eyewitness observation. Not faith, like we're asked for, based on fourth- or fiftieth-hand accounts.
Christians are asked for faith today, but in the 1st and 2nd century only evidence, faked or otherwise, would work. Most scholars agree, I think, that much of the Gospels are falsified to encourage belief, and to use as "evidence" against counter-arguments.

On the topic of when the early Gospel accounts were actually written, note that papyrus deteriorates quickly, clay is inconvenient, and parchment much more expensive than papyrus. And even papyrus wasn't cheap: it would have been imported from Egypt, I think, and priced at 2-4 pennyweights of silver per sheet or thereabouts.

So there's little evidence of what early versions of the Gospels might have existed.
 
Top