Whatsisface
Well-known member
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
- Thread starter Whatsisface
- Start date
Basically, the explanation is going to be: "People lie, make mistakes, misremember, exaggerate things, and sometimes even hallucinate. Some combination of such factors resulted in the Gospels as well as the numerous other religious myths in world literature." That is a solid general explanation from the point of view of debunking and rejecting the magical stories of Christianity.
If you're asking specifically why the Gospels were written as they were, that's more of a mundane historical question that I'll leave to others. But nobody should have to become a scholar to deny that the Gospels are adequate evidence for the resurrection.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
Thanks for the reply.
Tiburon
Well-known member
Cognitive dissonance.
docphin5
Well-known member
It is an ethical mythology about the world ordering cause, namely, Yeshua, a type for “salvation” in Hebrew scripture, returning the cosmos to perfection. If one thinks of the cosmos as a “Son of God” that has fallen into sickness and death then its resurrection would be its return to perfection.
The same message of cosmic salvation or self realization is told by other religions in their respective myths. For example, Osiris in Egyptian mythology who was killed, buried in a tree, and resurrected by Isis whom he was married too. Jesus wasn’t married but the Holy Spirit indwelled him forming a union or “marriage”. The story is a myth but its meaning applies to the substance of our cosmos, metaphorically, the world mother, which generates our consciousness from non-life, making us, arguably, the only intelligent species in the world capable of choosing good or bad or of self realization. The cosmos has a future expectation of “bodily” perfection symbolized by the rising morning star or sun, both Egyptian and Christian, rising out of the underworld or grave, respectively.
it is really that simple. The problem occurs when dull-minded, boorish people take the stories as literal, historical events, to include both religious fundamemtalists and atheists. A-theists like to take them literal so they can make fun of religion and fundamentalists take them literal because they are either misled, uneducated, or uncultured. Only the pious soul devoted to good can understand the purpose and meaning of the myths, at least that is what the mystics believed.
Last edited:
Furion
Well-known member
If only there were a pious do gooder mystic to guide everyone into resurrectionless cosmic nirvana.
Are you that mystic?
Play some misty-ic for me, papa needs some Gaia!
docphin5
Well-known member
At least we know who you are.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
A lot of secular mumbo jumbo there.
You want us to believe your mythologies and not believe God?
Why are your dull minded and boorish stunts failing?
Your pet sources lie.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
He is an old-fashined God denier. Tries to wear a "scholarly cloak"
Furion
Well-known member
Furion
Well-known member
Gnostics always sound like their beliefs are unique to themselves. A one man religion.
docphin5
Well-known member
Mainly a scientist. I knew that evolution was true. I also experienced a companion to my soul directing my steps, always present with me. So when Christianity could not explain how the two were connected I just asked my companion. He told me where to look, interpreted the scriptures, and helped me find the answers. I discovered a cloud of like minded individuals throughout the history of humans in every nation, culture, and religion. They were called by many names: mystics, magi, heirophants, gymnosophists, Essenes, Therapeutae, philosophers (i.e., lover of Wisdom), gnostics. It matters not what they were called by others for they all loved knowledge or Wisdom of the Divine.
The gospel message would still be essentially the same. Self denial/self sacrifice is a pervasive theme throughout history.
As far as an explanation for the gospels, there is quite a bit of information indicating that they were originally part of the Jewish liturgy. The fact that they follow the Jewish liturgical calendar is the most noteworthy clue. Marks gospel is the earliest, and follows the first half of the Jewish liturgical calendar while Matthew and Luke follow the whole year, and John's gospel follows a three year cycle which is still followed by the Catholic church to this day.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
Thanks for the reply.
Close, but there's no reason to change what the texts actually present which is Christ as the groom who returns for his bride, the church.
docphin5
Well-known member
And what does that mean? He opens a portal in the sky over New York City like in the Avengers movie and his angels pour forth through the portal reaping destructuon on the non-believers like Thanos did in the movie. Let’s be honest, you have no idea what that means or how it plays out in reality. it could mean something far different than your literal interpretation.
I'm not taking a literal interpretation. I'm simply using the same language you are, and pointing out that you claimed that there is no mention of marriage when there most certainly is.
docphin5
Well-known member
I thought you were contrasting the differences between “the Christ who returns” versus Osiris who does not return. I misunderstood your point. Now that I follow you, I would add, although the Gospel Jesus remained unmarried, the similitude of marriage was used for Paul’s cosmic Christ and his church, which Paul called a mystery.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:31)
The mystery referred to by Paul may be the union between souls and virtues in that the world ordering mother and “wife” of God generates his children now as virtuous souls and ultimately returning the cosmic body, that is, currently “one flesh” (the mystery), to perfection, at the resurrection. The type in Hebrew scripture would be the anointed Yeshua, son of Nun, (aka Jesus Christ) delivering his chosen ones to the “promised land”. It is a stretch, I know, but better that, than talking snakes, magical apples, etc.
Last edited:
Furion
Well-known member
Well I suppose I am an engineering scientist myself.
I can only claim to follow Christ, and Him alone. The only spirituality that exists.
It's not much of a stretch at all. It's right in line with Paul's teachings. The gospel narratives also present Christ as the groom with his parables and sayings e.g. "my Father has many mansions; only the father knows; weep for those who are with child when I return" etc. etc. Those are all references to the traditional relationship between a groom and his betrothed wife. The groom returns to his father's house to build a place for he and his wife. This home must meet with the approval of his father who then sends his son back to retrieve his wife. If the groom didn't have to do this, he would slap a few boards up against the side of his father's house, and immediately return for his bride. When he returns, he better not find his wife with child, etc.
There is no talking snake or magical apples in the bible. The former are a misinterpretation while the latter is a complete fabrication.
The "naXash" is a "burning one', or "shining one', and snakes are also referred by this term because of the burn of their bites. It does not then follow that the author of Genesis is referring to a talking snake, but to a shining one, i.e. a Seraph. We know this because the terms are synonymous.
When God tells Moses to place a Seraph on a pole, Moses complies by constructing a "naXash of brass". The "fiery serpents" mentioned in Numbers are "naXashim seraphm".
We also know this is the case because Paul points out that "that old serpent the devil, and Satan" is who tempted Eve. So it was not a snake, but a Seraph who tempted Adam and Eve.
He is not claiming that Satan is a literal snake anymore than Jesus is claiming Herod is a fox when he refers to him as "that old fox", or when the tribe of Israel is referred to as "the lion of Judah" etc.