It's an interesting view on things, but if you take Mark to be the first gospel you'll notice that from 15:40 on he does only one single thing: put 3 women on stage, 2 of them in a cameo appearance even, with the sole goal to blame them for the fact that no one had ever heard of a dead Jesus rising from the grave
There's nothing more to it than that really
Compare Mark to Luke, and to Matthew, and you'll find that they move away from everything in his story. Luke shifts the blame on the apostles instead, Matthew has Jesus appear straight away to evade the entire blame game
Mark is merely countering Marcion, who highly likely ended around Mark 15:37 / Luke 23:46
I'm aware that Tertullian etc attest to the resurrection, but it would have greatly hurt their case if they hadn't, re docetism
“This morning I posted a series of tweets about the resurrection that in retrospect I fear may have been received as disrespectful or trolling, which was not my intention.”
Regardless of your intentions, if you express a view of the alleged resurrection which is outside of the Christian mainstream, then you will be considered disrespectful by Christians, at least most of them. This applies even to the metaphorical view you express here in substack.
“What if it was meant to be something like a metaphorical or mythic truth,...”
But the evidence weighs against that hypothesis. It appears that Paul and the Gospel writers intended their stories to be taken literally.
I have long believed that the bible was never to be taken literally, but as guidance for finding happiness in life, which IS our heaven on Earth. It wasn't easy to shake the shame and guilt and FEAR that a Catholic upbringing engendered, but once I did, I embraced this idea fully and without guilt. I have been a very happy person, in general since then and while now living on social security, I feel very rich!
There may well be IMO also a parallel between the writing of history for the British colonialisation of the native peoples (of US, Australia, Canada, etc) and the writing of history for the colonisation of the pagan milieu in the Roman empire. The early traditional form of "Colonial History" rarely mentions the native people, their customs and traditions, and glosses over the repressions (military) of the colonisers. Only in the 1970's onwards revisionist histories of colonialisation attempt to include, and tell the story from, the perspective of the native people. There has been as yet no revisionist histories written for the Christian revolution of the 4th century. We still seem to read the history of this epoch through the lens of the "Fathers of the Church" -- conspicuously a one sided perspective (just like the earlier original "Colonial Histories". What will be required is a revisionist history of the "Christian Revolution / Colonisation of the 4th century from the perspective of the pagans / heretics.
I'm amazed no one has brought up the Story of Lazarus. Jesus going into the cave and coming out after raising Lazarus from the dead. Took on a special meaning for me when I read The Last Temptation Of Christ Nikos kazantzakis. I seem to remember Lazarus out from the cave Lazarus saying why the hell did you do this to me? His flesh was all rotting, he was in terrible pain and smelled like death!
Aside from all the often contradictory religious-oriented details which have been commented on here, it seems to me that the "Oppression-Redemption" narrative is so cross-cultural as to be an intrinsic part of human brain structure & operation species-wide. It also follows that on a more fine-grained examination, we should find a blueprint for these structures and operations somewhere within the human genome. It's reasonable to conclude that specific aspects of human behavior, both individual and group dynamics, are initiated and mediated through specific brain structures & operations, and that these in turn have been set in motion by a cascade of millions or billions of gene expressions during human development. These behaviors, and I'm sure many, many others (eg. tendencies toward violence; musical and artistic talents and abilities, etc.) are therefore a direct extension of individual genetic propensities. I will continue to read and explore where and how these subjects are being researched and published in the various sciences.
Another amazing post Michael. There is no reason why Christians and Skeptics cannot work together to make the world in which we all live a better place. None of us has a monopoly on morality. Biblical scholar N.T. Wright in his work on the Psalms and his other writings demonstrates that matter matters to the Creator. The death and resurrection of Jesus for Christians shows that God is at work to put to rights what is wrong in this present world. That is what judgment is all about. Injustice in the world and our demand for fairness is one proof for the existence of God. Howard Roark in Ayn Rand's novel the Fountain Head says that "the root of every despicable action is self - lessness". Soul - less and self - less men like Hitler, Stalin, and Mr. Putin will one day be held accountable.
I credit Bart Ehrman's 'Forged' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_(book) with helping me understand the Hellenistic influence on scripture, and to view ancient writing more symbolically and philosophically. I don't dismiss the possibility of resurrection, but that seems unlikely. However, I just read James Hamblin's 'If Our Bodies Could Talk', p. 279, where he describes immortal germ cells that rebuild telomeres. I'm feeling Socratic ignorance, and the advantage of Pyrrhonism, or at least, a skeptical suspension of judgment.
There’s lots of reverence going on today by the Christians for the Resurrection story. But don’t believe what they say in the bible. They leave out what Paul Harvey called “the rest of the story.” The truth is that when the Disciples found out Judas was the one who squealed on Jesus, they were pretty upset. So, after the Last Supper, the disciples decided to send Jesus to India with his pregnant girlfriend, Mary Magdalene. Then they got Judas really drunk, then dressed him up and put on some makeup to made him look like JC (the guards didn’t know what Jesus looked like anyway.) They then presented Judas for execution with him mumbling incoherently . Meanwhile, Jesus and Mary got away to India, learned to speak Hindi, had a couple of kids, established a Kashmir sweater company and lived a happy life. And now you know the rest of the story!
Interesting interpretation, and one that puts an “I’m my own grandpa” spin on things. Well here is another. The big G god did NOT believe that He was the only god. The first commandment is (my emphasis) “ I am the LORD GOD… thou shall not put OTHER gods before me.” So he admits the existence of other gods but INSISTS that Christians only worship Him.
This kind of thinking was seen as open for discussion while I was in Catholic High in the late 60s and taught by Franciscan Brothers, but while in Catholic grammar school with Franciscan nuns, it got you slapped. Boy does dogma sting!
Hard to read a critique of faith by someone who doesn't understand the premise that he is criticizing. Your description of the ressurection syllogism is wrong from a Catholic perspective. Not even close. I recommend you read the work of people like Brant Pitre, or Bishop Robert Barron, and if you are up for it Thomas Aquinas. Then you may be able to understand the Catholic perspective. And your criticism may add some value. As it stands, it is like Babe Ruth criticizing Tiger Woods' golf swing.
It's an interesting view on things, but if you take Mark to be the first gospel you'll notice that from 15:40 on he does only one single thing: put 3 women on stage, 2 of them in a cameo appearance even, with the sole goal to blame them for the fact that no one had ever heard of a dead Jesus rising from the grave
There's nothing more to it than that really
Compare Mark to Luke, and to Matthew, and you'll find that they move away from everything in his story. Luke shifts the blame on the apostles instead, Matthew has Jesus appear straight away to evade the entire blame game
Mark is merely countering Marcion, who highly likely ended around Mark 15:37 / Luke 23:46
I'm aware that Tertullian etc attest to the resurrection, but it would have greatly hurt their case if they hadn't, re docetism
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_self_evident_emergence_of_Christianity
“This morning I posted a series of tweets about the resurrection that in retrospect I fear may have been received as disrespectful or trolling, which was not my intention.”
Regardless of your intentions, if you express a view of the alleged resurrection which is outside of the Christian mainstream, then you will be considered disrespectful by Christians, at least most of them. This applies even to the metaphorical view you express here in substack.
“What if it was meant to be something like a metaphorical or mythic truth,...”
But the evidence weighs against that hypothesis. It appears that Paul and the Gospel writers intended their stories to be taken literally.
I have long believed that the bible was never to be taken literally, but as guidance for finding happiness in life, which IS our heaven on Earth. It wasn't easy to shake the shame and guilt and FEAR that a Catholic upbringing engendered, but once I did, I embraced this idea fully and without guilt. I have been a very happy person, in general since then and while now living on social security, I feel very rich!
There may well be IMO also a parallel between the writing of history for the British colonialisation of the native peoples (of US, Australia, Canada, etc) and the writing of history for the colonisation of the pagan milieu in the Roman empire. The early traditional form of "Colonial History" rarely mentions the native people, their customs and traditions, and glosses over the repressions (military) of the colonisers. Only in the 1970's onwards revisionist histories of colonialisation attempt to include, and tell the story from, the perspective of the native people. There has been as yet no revisionist histories written for the Christian revolution of the 4th century. We still seem to read the history of this epoch through the lens of the "Fathers of the Church" -- conspicuously a one sided perspective (just like the earlier original "Colonial Histories". What will be required is a revisionist history of the "Christian Revolution / Colonisation of the 4th century from the perspective of the pagans / heretics.
This was beautiful
I'm amazed no one has brought up the Story of Lazarus. Jesus going into the cave and coming out after raising Lazarus from the dead. Took on a special meaning for me when I read The Last Temptation Of Christ Nikos kazantzakis. I seem to remember Lazarus out from the cave Lazarus saying why the hell did you do this to me? His flesh was all rotting, he was in terrible pain and smelled like death!
Aside from all the often contradictory religious-oriented details which have been commented on here, it seems to me that the "Oppression-Redemption" narrative is so cross-cultural as to be an intrinsic part of human brain structure & operation species-wide. It also follows that on a more fine-grained examination, we should find a blueprint for these structures and operations somewhere within the human genome. It's reasonable to conclude that specific aspects of human behavior, both individual and group dynamics, are initiated and mediated through specific brain structures & operations, and that these in turn have been set in motion by a cascade of millions or billions of gene expressions during human development. These behaviors, and I'm sure many, many others (eg. tendencies toward violence; musical and artistic talents and abilities, etc.) are therefore a direct extension of individual genetic propensities. I will continue to read and explore where and how these subjects are being researched and published in the various sciences.
Another amazing post Michael. There is no reason why Christians and Skeptics cannot work together to make the world in which we all live a better place. None of us has a monopoly on morality. Biblical scholar N.T. Wright in his work on the Psalms and his other writings demonstrates that matter matters to the Creator. The death and resurrection of Jesus for Christians shows that God is at work to put to rights what is wrong in this present world. That is what judgment is all about. Injustice in the world and our demand for fairness is one proof for the existence of God. Howard Roark in Ayn Rand's novel the Fountain Head says that "the root of every despicable action is self - lessness". Soul - less and self - less men like Hitler, Stalin, and Mr. Putin will one day be held accountable.
I credit Bart Ehrman's 'Forged' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_(book) with helping me understand the Hellenistic influence on scripture, and to view ancient writing more symbolically and philosophically. I don't dismiss the possibility of resurrection, but that seems unlikely. However, I just read James Hamblin's 'If Our Bodies Could Talk', p. 279, where he describes immortal germ cells that rebuild telomeres. I'm feeling Socratic ignorance, and the advantage of Pyrrhonism, or at least, a skeptical suspension of judgment.
https://nautil.us/as-creation-stories-go-the-big-bang-is-a-good-one-16149/
There’s lots of reverence going on today by the Christians for the Resurrection story. But don’t believe what they say in the bible. They leave out what Paul Harvey called “the rest of the story.” The truth is that when the Disciples found out Judas was the one who squealed on Jesus, they were pretty upset. So, after the Last Supper, the disciples decided to send Jesus to India with his pregnant girlfriend, Mary Magdalene. Then they got Judas really drunk, then dressed him up and put on some makeup to made him look like JC (the guards didn’t know what Jesus looked like anyway.) They then presented Judas for execution with him mumbling incoherently . Meanwhile, Jesus and Mary got away to India, learned to speak Hindi, had a couple of kids, established a Kashmir sweater company and lived a happy life. And now you know the rest of the story!
Interesting interpretation, and one that puts an “I’m my own grandpa” spin on things. Well here is another. The big G god did NOT believe that He was the only god. The first commandment is (my emphasis) “ I am the LORD GOD… thou shall not put OTHER gods before me.” So he admits the existence of other gods but INSISTS that Christians only worship Him.
This kind of thinking was seen as open for discussion while I was in Catholic High in the late 60s and taught by Franciscan Brothers, but while in Catholic grammar school with Franciscan nuns, it got you slapped. Boy does dogma sting!
Hard to read a critique of faith by someone who doesn't understand the premise that he is criticizing. Your description of the ressurection syllogism is wrong from a Catholic perspective. Not even close. I recommend you read the work of people like Brant Pitre, or Bishop Robert Barron, and if you are up for it Thomas Aquinas. Then you may be able to understand the Catholic perspective. And your criticism may add some value. As it stands, it is like Babe Ruth criticizing Tiger Woods' golf swing.