Was Jesus in the grave for 3 days and nights literally?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
How does this definition of days work with the whole 6 days of creation and 7th day of rest in genesis? Still roughly a day?
Oh welcome back JoC
You're conflating two different books written in two different genres. Whilst the gospels speak of the 3 days Jesus was in the tomb as Friday, Saturday, Sunday (i.e., three actual days, the counting of which isn't as important to them), the book of Genesis takes a different approach.
The book of Genesis (especially the first 11 chapters) in its language and genre is more poetic and as such, it conveys truths through more fanciful ways. Take it as you may take some truths from poetry. The author of Genesis wanted to convey certain truths through poetry. The analogy is stretching it but take Genesis 1 thru 11 just as one would the Psalms.
As such, the church (Catholic) hasn't taken the creation narrative to be literal 7 days.
Here's internal evidence that the author of the creation narrative never meant it to be taken literally. Going back to the story, the sun and moon are created on day 3. Which begs the question, what determined day and night before day 3? As such, Catholics generally take the creation narrative to say that "God created the universe and those things that used to be worshiped by the ancient people like the sun, moon, stars, animals, etc, are all mere creations of the Creator." It was written in a way that would've meant more to the people at the time who did worship the sun or the moon, or the stars, or other animals.
As such, I can say I believe the Genesis narrative but not literally.
Also, thanks for the welcome back, guys! I just got busy the past year.
Re: JoC - "The author of Genesis wanted to convey certain truths through poetry."
Amazing how somebody seems to know sooooo much about how the author(s) of VASTLY different cultures from thousands of years ago meant for their writings to be conveyed. Of course, let us not forget we also have thousands of other religious sects based on those EXACT SAME TEXTS in which those members ALSO claim to know exactly what the writers meant. It's a damn shame, though, that very few out of all those thousands ever seem to agree with each other.
Re: JoC - "It was written in a way that would've meant more to the people at the time who did worship the sun or the moon, or the stars, or other animals."
Ahhhhh.... Good for them. Fascinating, though, that the PERFECT omniscient and omnipotent god that was responsible for those writings was too big a bumbling idiot to write anything that would actually make sense to those of us living in a more scientifically and technologically advanced society. Guess he was just too busy obsessing over foreskins, seafood, and fashion designs to plan that far ahead... *shrugging shoulders*...
Just like any text from any time period, people will have varying interpretations, which is why we have to study them individually and see what they say. Can we agree though that regardless of the book of Genesis being in the Bible or not, it should be subjected to textual and contextual scrutiny?
The only thing I'm saying is treat any book in the Bible as you would any other text. You don't need to believe it and I respect that.
"Can we agree though that regardless of the book of Genesis being in the Bible or not, it should be subjected to textual and contextual scrutiny?"
I have to disagree, that is just an excuse to apply any interpretation to any verse. Yet for most people, what they take away from the bible is literal. And if you are questioned by something that is contradictory or just doesn't make sense, you play the "it must be taken contextually"?
How about Leviticus 18 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Maybe it did not refer to homosexual behavior?
But then again, the bible is the greatest multiple choice book ever.
"Fascinating, though, that the PERFECT omniscient and omnipotent god that was responsible for those writings was too big a bumbling idiot to write anything that would actually make sense to those of us living in a more scientifically and technologically advanced society. Guess he was just too busy obsessing over foreskins, seafood, and fashion designs to plan that far ahead"
I lolled at this coz Catholics actually have an answer to this in that God didn't stop writing things specifically for us living in a more scientifically and technologically advanced society. While Catholics believe in a closed canon of scripture (nothing can be added to it), we also believe that God has put in place an office thru which He can speak to the people of today.
Ain't that convenient....
so the institution of the popes (primate of the church) was put in place for communication? Or are we talking about one of the other more unmentionable institutions of the church that we know about?
I wonder how much 'communication' the inquisition was responsible for? I wonder what 'communication' the secret deal with the Nazis was meant to convey...Or maybe was it the Masonic lodges the financiers and cardinals belong to? K2 was it?
Or maybe it was the doctrine of Papal infallibility...oh, wait...that meant god waited until 1869 before he decided the 'descendants of Peter' could say no wrong?
Fuck me JoC you have come back filled with something but it aint good sense.
"I lolled at this coz Catholics actually have an answer to this in that God didn't stop writing things specifically for us living in a more scientifically and technologically advanced society."
So you claim to know the nature of god by that statement.
I have a question for you, Mr "I Know God's Nature", why do children suffer and die from cancer?
Re: JoC - "...God didn't stop writing things specifically for us living in a more scientifically and technologically advanced society."
Sooooo.... Despite the fact the bible makes it abundantly clear that NO MAN can ever understand the mind of God, it is amazing to me how JoC and others like him are always "Johnny-on-the-spot" to let us poor ignorant heathen bastards know what God was thinking when He made certain commands or took certain actions. Which begs the question of, "Where do they get that marvelous insight into the mind of an entity that claims it cannot be understood by Man?" Do they have a red "hotline" phone on their desk, and God calls them on it directly to explain himself to a "chosen" select few of His precious human pets? Maybe they have periodic camping trips where they all gather around the campfire and sing "Kumbaya" while God tells them his deepest inner thoughts to share with the rest of humanity. Oh! Wait! I got it!... *slapping side of leg*.... JoC and his other apologist buddies are not human! They are actually ANGELS! Yes! That totally explains why they know so much about how God thinks!... *sigh of relief*... Phew! Glad we finally got that cleared up.
Re: JoC - "While Catholics believe in a closed canon of scripture (nothing can be added to it)..."
...*schnortle*.... *attempting to control laughter*.... (Please, stop me if you've heard this one.) Ummm... So, nothing can be added to... *snerk*.... or taken away from... *guffaw*... the scriptures/canon of a book that was written over the course of several centuries by multiple unknown authors of various cultures and then - along the way - was translated across several different languages with countless different interpretations, highly edited by different rulers/leaders to fit their respective agendas, and to this very day the Pope can make decrees that can override and/or "enhance" whatever scriptures he sees fit. You mean THAT "closed system"?... *snerkle*... *chortle*.... *guffaw*.... Bwaaaa-haaaa-haaa-haaaa...!!!
Edit to add link:
@JoC: RE: Catholic Answers. You obviously have no ability to understand the difference between an answer and an excuse.
Re: Catholic closed cannon: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....
"They believe in a closed cannon of scripture (Nothing can be added to it.) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... OH FUCK .... I FARTED.
(Where in the FUCK did the second commandment go? ""Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"
It wasn't an excuse. It's saying that every single text that comes our way must be scrutinized the same way. Poetry as poetry and historical narrative as historical narrative. I think you'd agree that if we were examining Shakespeare's poems that you wouldn't look at them with the same lens as Josephus' works. That's all.
To answer your off tangent, our first commandment is simply longer in that it includes that phrase. You cut off the last part though which is to bow and worship them, which we do not do. In short, the first commandment (for Catholics) prohibits idolatry of any kind.
Re: JoC - "In short, the first commandment (for Catholics) prohibits idolatry of any kind."
...*jaw dragging floor*... *eyes wide with disbelief*.... Honestly, how does a person type such things with a straight face??? Truly amazing...
Ya know, I have said this before, but it is totally worth repeating. I was always taught that any Christian who acts in such a way as to turn others away from God is committing an incredibly horrible sin and is a disgrace to the faith. And it is my understanding that the Catholic faith takes that matter even more seriously. As such, I simply cannot help but wonder how dear ol' JoC is able to sleep with a clear conscious when pretty much every post he makes contains such outlandish, dishonest, and - in some cases - disturbingly repulsive remarks that they only serve to reinforce the reasons why I no longer believe in the bible or god that are the central controlling factors in the whole religious con game. And for any of the non-participating members who may be "on the fence" and read those same posts, if they have even half a brain cell to spare I am confident that many of them will easily see the caustic nature and the sheer lunacy of the statements made, thereby helping them to see the insidiously adverse effects religious dogma has on the human mind.
And what is most fascinating to me is that JoC (and Jo, for that matter) does not seem to be bothered by this fact in the very least. Nope, not at all. Instead, they both just keep coming back with the same lame material over and over and over, regardless of how many times they get called out on their less-than-honorable behavior. Sometimes it is almost as if they are INTENTIONALLY making questionable remarks and non-sense "arguments" in an effort to purposely make their faith appear more ridiculous. Certainly I cannot be the only person here who notices these things. Although, in all fairness, I admit I DO have a rather active imagination at times... *shrugging shoulders*...
Side note: Be advised, I do not expect any responses to this from JoC or Jo, as I have already made a few other such posts over the past several weeks, and none of them were ever addressed. Instead, as usual, this post is primarily for the benefit for those members and visitors who read the threads but never participate in the discussions.
See, everybody? Told you JoC would not respond to that post I made about how his behavior makes his faith look terrible. No surprise at all on this end... *chuckle*...
Jo: Once again you are demonstrably WRONG/ More excuses. Vague interpretations do not prevent Catholics from praying to their idols.
Have you even talked to Catholics? Ask them who they think their God is. You'd be hard pressed to find one that says IT IS the statue on their altar. Catholics understand those to be mere symbols just as pictures of loved ones would be of mere representations of the actual loved ones.
So what do they pray to when they are praying to actual photographs of their saints?
JoC, you make less sense every time you post.
You mean praying in front of photographs of saints. When Catholics "pray to saints" they're really asking for prayers from these Saints. Check any Catholic prayer to any of the saints and you'll see that it almost always ends with a petition to pray for them. Even the Hail Mary ends with "Pray for us, sinners, now and until the hour of our death. Amen."
Oh, how about this one? "That I may obtain sufficient money for necessities, And tranquillity and joy will reign in my house. By your grace, Blessed Saint, I request and pray that I will achieve my desire.
or this "O Holy Patroness of those in need, St. Rita, whose pleadings before thy Divine Lord are almost irresistible, who for thy lavishness in granting favors hast been called the Advocate of the Hopeless and even of the Impossible; St. Rita, so humble, so pure, so mortified, so patient and of such compassionate love for thy Crucified Jesus that thou couldst obtain from Him whatsoever thou askest, on account of which all confidently have recourse to thee expecting, if not always relief, at least comfort; be propitious to our petition, showing thy power with God on behalf of thy suppliant; be lavish to us, as thou hast been in so many wonderful cases, for the greater glory of God, for the spreading of thine own devotion, and for the consolation of those who trust in thee.
We promise, if our petition is granted, to glorify thee by making known thy favor, to bless and sing thy praises forever. Relying then upon thy merits and power before the Sacred Heart of Jesus, we pray thee grant that [here mention your petition]. Pray for us, O holy St. Rita, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
No. prayers to saints do not "almost always" end as you say. Easy to check JoC, and find you are as mendacious as ever.
Nice to see you back and still lying for the pope JoC.
Check out the last line you quoted. It literally has the words, "Pray for us, O holy St. Rita." and that's how the prayer ends.
Fair call. I was wrong on that second prayer. ...so with my examples we are at 50/50.... your turn. That is, so far, not all or most.
Your first prayer is one to St. Expidite. You omitted the line that follows your quote and it goes, "And I will give thanks for your glorious intercession."
If you're not familiar, intercession is what Catholics call prayers of saints or other people for other people (i.e., if I prayed for you, that's called an intercessory prayer or simply an intercession)
Arguing over minor details in completely unevidenced books....
Nothing separates the bible quran or any other holy book I ever heard of from harry potter books except some have been heavily edited and translated for over 1000 years. (A fact that weakens any god/religion argument, not bolster.)
We will never know for sure, but I would not be surprised at all if more people alive today have read harry potter series cover to cover then all their particular religion's holy books. In an appeal to popularity argument, I would not be surprised if harry potter books win.
And the fact that it is even close, says a lot about any particular god idea.
Treat any holy book as first and foremost, a book. As it stands, anything written before the printing press would fall under the category of "heavily edited and translated" for however long they've been in circulation. I don't see how any claim in any other book would have its claims weakened simply because it was "heavily edited and translated".
@Jo: For your blasphemous lies do 50 hail Marys and call the doctor in the morning.
"In the Catholic Church, the veneration of Mary, mother of Jesus, encompasses various Marian devotions which include prayer, pious acts, visual arts, poetry, and music devoted to the Blessed Virgin"
"Further pious veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary encouraged by Popes are exhibited in the canonical coronations granted to popular Marian images venerated in a particular locality all over the world, while Marian movements and societies with millions of members have arisen from belief in events such as Akita, Fátima, and Lourdes, and other reasons."
You don't even know your own Religion Jo. *Shaking head in disbelief.* "SAD!"
"Have you even talked to Catholics? Ask them who they think their God is. You'd be hard pressed to find one that says IT IS the statue on their altar. Catholics understand those to be mere symbols just as pictures of loved ones would be of mere representations of the actual loved ones."
When you create a statue of a saint or prophet, place it in a position that dominates a room, fondle a rosary, and then get on your knees and make gestures of worship (taking the praying position or doing the "testicles, spectacles, wallet, and watch" move), guess what, you are worshiping that idol.
All tbe gospels and most of the new testament were written to follow the liturgical worship of the Torah in the synagogues of the first century period.
They are not history. Quite apart from the question of a historical Jesus is whether he could have possibly been arrested tried and executed during the most sacred of Jewish festivals. The Jews believe killing a fellow Jew was equivalent to murdering God. To execute Jesus during the Passover would have been the equivalent to executing someone on death row at Christmas today. The Japanese did so several years ago and faced enormous international criticism despite not being a christian nation.
There is no historical truth in the gospels. As Jewish literature they draw on many traditional themes of the Torah following the midrashic tradtion of writing. Matthew's nativity draws on several oblique references to David (Bethlehem, the sheperds) and Solomon (gold frankincense and myrh, and swaddling). The Star, the wisemen weren't actual aspects of the nativity but symbolic devices to emphasise Jesus' connection to Jewish tradition. Many false references have been squeezed out of the Torah by zealous christians as prophecies but these are extremely tenuous at best.
edited because the spelling errors came from typing on my cell phone during an hour long bumpy bus ride and I hadn't even had breakfast.
Jesus wasn't buried or entombed in Jerusalem. He switched places with his younger brother, Isukiri, who was crucified in his place. Jesus himself fled across Siberia and finally to the village of Shingo, in northern Japan. There he became a rice farmer, married a Japanese woman and raised three daughters. He died at the age of 106. His bones are still buried there. You can see a picture of his grave here.
I'm afraid the website is all in Japanese. The people in the village claim that the story is true, and they have his brother's ear and a lock of Mary's hair to prove it. The testament of Jesus, written in Hebrew by the man himself, was discovered in Shingo in 1933, but it was lost in World War 2.
@Algebe: Well, hell. If they claim it is true - that's all I need. I'm a believer.
Unless you can disprove it, it's true.
@Algebe: Bananas are good with religious claims. I wonder if I Love Lucy is still on TV. Where are the potato chips. I am tire of thinking now.