Was Jesus in the grave for 3 days and nights literally?

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
How does this definition of

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

JoC's picture
You're conflating two

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.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: JoC - "The author of

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*...

JoC's picture
Just like any text from any

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.

JoC's picture
"Fascinating, though, that

"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.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

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.

Grinseed's picture
All tbe gospels and most of

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.

Algebe's picture
http://www.vill.shingo.aomori

http://www.vill.shingo.aomori.jp/sight/sight_main/kankou/sight-christ/

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.
http://www.vill.shingo.aomori.jp/sight/sight_main/kankou/sight-christ/

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.

Cognostic's picture
@Algebe: Well, hell. If

@Algebe: Well, hell. If they claim it is true - that's all I need. I'm a believer.

Algebe's picture
@Cognostic:

@Cognostic:

Unless you can disprove it, it's true.

Cognostic's picture
@Algebe: Bananas are good

@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.

Sheldon's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

Precisely, and if it's not true how did the universe get created? Evolution can't tell us after all....

Damn it, another irony overload. I'm really gonna have to dial down the sarcasm.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Algebe

@ Algebe

I just looked that up and did some research...fascinating story...

cranky47's picture
@algebe

@algebe

Fascinating

Of course you also know that Jesus spent time in both India and Egypt? (impeccable source; the theosophical society bookshop)

Thomas Didymus allegedly travelled to Kerala, I think, and founded Christianity in India.*** Not sure if the Gospel of Thomas is attributed to him, but both are considered apocryphal by 'mainstream christianity", which in fact means bugger all --anything which does not support dogma is rejected outright or called apocryphal .,. I think the Catholic church at least, rejected everything found at Nag Hammadi .

Mainstream Christians tend to have the quaint belief that Christianity emerged whole and homogeneous in the first century. There were dozens of sects , all with different texts, and some with very different beliefs. One's I can think of off hand : Ebionites, Arians ,Gnostics , and Donatists . I gather there was some friction between various sects

Christianity didn't begin to become relatively homogeneous until after the first Nicene council, which established the canon. IF there is a single reason for the growth of christianity, imo it was emperor Theodosius making christianity the state religion of the Roman empire. He also permitted and encouraged the murder of 'heretics' . That practice continued with gay abandon for over 1000 years.

My favourite heretics are the Ebionites, who were Jewish .(see below) ,

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones") is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, the Hebrew Book of Matthew starting at chapter three; revered James, the brother of Jesus (James the Just); and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty. Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran who sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple. Many believe that the Qumran sectarians were Essenes.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

MY reference : "Lost Christianities; The Battle For scriptures and faiths we never knew" Bart Ehrman

**8 Ehrman argues that The Gospel of Thomas was probably composed by a gnostic, some time in the second century. Sounds reasonable . Or at least a bit more reasonable than Thomas writing it in India ,from where it found its way back to the middle east. where a copy was produced in the second century. Who knows.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: OP - "Was Jesus in the

Re: OP - "Was Jesus in the grave for 3 days and nights literally?"

Are we talking about three days as in the length of the six creationist type days? Or are we talking about three regular ol' 24 hour type days? And it wasn't a grave, by the way. It was a tomb. Shucks, for all we know, Mr. Haysoos could have been hanging out with his crew playing poker and just chillin' for those three days. That is assuming, of course, he ever existed in the first place.

Grinseed's picture
Rev Spong suggests the three

Rev Spong suggests the three days between death and resurrection are another Jewish literary motif, and remember the gospels were written by Hellenised Jews for other Hellenised Jews who at least shared an understanding of Jewish religious culture.

The gospels clearly indicate a period of 36 hours between dying and resurrecting, not three days.
The 'three days' Spong says comes from the Jewish eschatology or end times tradition. The story they tell says that when the Battle of Armageddon has been fought and everything and all life has been destroyed there will be a period of three days of stillness and darkness and on the dawn of the following day God will return with his new kingdom to fill the earth with light and new life. For the christian Jew it drew a comparison between the death of Jesus and the end of the world and his resurrection mirrored the return of the kingdom of God to the earth.

It would appear that gentile Greek and Roman christians, not having the faintest idea of Jewish lore, nor wanting to know, took the symbolic three days of Armageddon as a literal three days and so the timeline of the gospels were overlooked and we ended up with a long weekend.

reedemption's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic
I think you're having a different argument from the one I am having.

The issue is that those dots are not giant balls of gas or rock. They are just shiny dots on the Great Dome of the sky. There is no proof of any "outer space" or giant gas balls.

If you can prove the existence of outer space and your giant balls of gas and rock, then I will prove the existence of God to you too.

reedemption's picture
@Cognostic RE: We have no

"@Cognostic RE: "We have no records of a magical working prophet contemporary to the life of this Jesus person. NONE. We do have records of about 8 other prophets during the same time period; however, regarding the guy that allegedly cause earthquakes, a darkness to fall over the earth, the blind to see, the lame to walk, the dead to rise from their graves, history is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY silent. If Jesus lived, not a single soul noticed him or had anything at all to say about him during his life. No one noticed his ride into the city on the back of an ass, no one noticed the great sermon on the mount, not a single soul watched him walk on water or feed the multitude with loaves and fishes. All we have are stories written by non-observers, generations after the fact. There is no eye witness to anything Jesus allegedly did. NONE"

This argument is often made. The problem is how few records we actually have from that time period to begin with, and how few of what we do have would have any reason to mention Jesus at all. For example:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.php

RE: "Lastly and most importantly, we have no reputable account of a resurrection. What we have are 3 contradictory stories that were written more than 70 to 120 years after the supposed event"
.
The dating of the gospels is of course a complicated subject (I favor early dates for the synoptics but can understand the arguments for later ones), but "70-120 years after the supposed event" is a fairly fringe position. Even the more critical scholars date the gospels to the first century, except for perhaps John which sometimes gets put into the early second century. 70 is more akin to the maximum years after Jesus's death for the writing of the gospels by scholars, not the minimum.

As for the stories being contradictory:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php

RE: "What we have is Paul's version that never mentions miracles, virgin birth, or ministry on earth. We have Paul who admits that everything he knows comes from scripture or divine inspiration and he only knows about a Jesus who exists in the heavens. From Paul's version to the gospels, each story gains in complexity"

Paul would have little reason to go into details about miracles, the virgin birth, or ministry on Earth. Paul's letters, after all, were advice being sent to churches, i.e. people who were already Christians who already knew about the life of Jesus (this is in contrast to the Gospels, where the point was to let people know about the life of Jesus). You don't need to spend time reminding them of things they would have been well acquainted with already, especially given this was a time period where paper wasn't as easy to get and there was reason to save space.

@Oldmanshouts, what say you?

Nyarlathotep's picture
reedemption - -...http://www

reedemption -
...http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.php...
...http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php...

The website you'e been linking; says that Apollo astronauts traveled to the moon.

How is this not trolling?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Reedemption

@ Reedemption

The problem is how few records we actually have from that time period to begin with, and how few of what we do have would have any reason to mention Jesus at all. For example:

There are thousands of records from the 1st Century CE. Even from the beginning of the Century and before.The problem historically for Christians is that there is NO mention of the jesus figure until the earliest of the Epistles, which of course do not convey the same message as the much later stories in the Gospels which have been dated in the case of Mark to about 75CE at the earliest.
Other self claimed Messiahs both major and minor are mentioned by contemporary writers, but not one note, message or side note about this jesus figure. Not one of the 5000 people fed on bread and fish thought to mention it, None of the attendees at the Sermon of the Mount. None seems to have witnessed the 500 plus zombies preaching around Jerusalem never mind the 'darkness at midday etc which was meant to accompany the lost weekend of the jesus figure.
Further there is no record of ANY of the disciples in subsequent history, except in Second Century tales. The gospels themselves cannot agree on how many and who they were, where they went and how they died.

Paul:
Paul does not describe a physical resurrection at all, he positively claims a spiritual visitation by the jesus figure, one that is roundly contradicted in the gospels and later dogma. Paul had visions of this figure and conversations with it resulting in much of the Epistles contents. As only 3 of the epistles can be ascribed as to be mostly by the same author, 6 are combinations and compilations of writings that contain content (often contradictory) , and the rest are either complete forgeries or by a foreign hand in total.

The gospel stories are all contradictory and were never meant to be compared as they are today. Each gospel was "the" gospel and intended (and was indeed) used by a particular group or sect. The anthology we call the "New Testament: is a much much later invention. The Syriac church used a version of all the gospels that was disembowelled and bowdlerised so that the stories did not contradict, This of course was declared anathema some time later and destroyed. The Gospel of Thomas was used as the foundation of the Christian Church in Kerala State, India and was used exclusively until the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th Century....

Paul would have little reason to go into details about miracles, the virgin birth, or ministry on Earth. Paul's letters, after all, were advice being sent to churches, i.e. people who were already Christians who already knew about the life of Jesus

Rubbish. The letters were to christians who may or may not have been using texts with no mention of the birth narrative, or, no mention of the resurrection. These were common in the early 1st century, and we know that because their use was later attacked by the Pauline church. The birth and death narratives were later additions probably in the late 1st century and some we know to the mid second or even 3rd Centuries.

'Paper' making was a HUGE industry in Roman times. Actual Paper, Vellum, Papyrii and other materials were produced in huge quantities and was readily available to the middle classes. It is the preservation of such used items that was, and is problematic.

The main problem we have is the destruction of so many early texts by the eventual winners of the contest between the various sects of Christianity. The Romanised Pauline sect won and the rest as we know is 'history'. A history of destruction , bloodshed and an orgy of book burning from the mid third century until modern times.

That there is NO contemporary reference to a jesus figure as described in the gospels is not supposition it is a fact.

reedemption's picture
@Old Man Shouts

@Old Man Shouts
"There are thousands of records from the 1st Century CE. Even from the beginning of the Century and before. The problem historically for Christians is that there is NO mention of the jesus figure until the earliest of the Epistles, which of course do not convey the same message as the much later stories in the Gospels which have been dated in the case of Mark to about 75CE at the earliest."
And yet those "thousands" of records are only a small part of everything that was written in that period. But that is somewhat besides the point. Of these "thousands" of records we have, which ones would have mentioned Jesus but did not? The primary historians were Romans who were mostly concerned about, well, Rome. A lower-class guy off in a distant province who didn't pose any real problems to the Romans and got killed early in his life would have been negligible to them, even if there were reported miracles.

The claim that Mark would be at the "earliest" 75CE is inaccurate. Certainly, there are reasonable arguments to be made for that or even later dates, but there are also reasonable arguments to be made for dates decades prior to that. Earlychristianwritings.com, hardly a conservative source, gives an estimated date range of 65-80 for Mark.

"but not one note, message or side note about this jesus figure. Not one of the 5000 people fed on bread and fish thought to mention it, None of the attendees at the Sermon of the Mount. None seems to have witnessed the 500 plus zombies preaching around Jerusalem never mind the 'darkness at midday etc which was meant to accompany the lost weekend of the jesus figure."
This is an odd claim. You say none of them "Not one of the 5000 people fed on bread and fish thought to mention it." What's the basis for them not mentioning it? Lack of written statements by them? Even if they did do that, regular erosion has removed most documents from that era.

RE
"Further there is no record of ANY of the disciples in subsequent history, except in Second Century tales."
No record? The First Epistle of Clement refers to both Peter and Paul.

While it is true that tradition states Thomas visited India, I cannot find any evidence of this claim that the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" was used at all by the Christian Church in Kerala, let alone it being the foundation or exclusive holy book prior to the 16th century.

The point is that one cannot claim Paul's lack of mentioning such things in the letters is somehow indicative of them being false or unknown when he would have little reason to mention them given he had already gone and preached to them in the past. That is when he would have shared any such information, not in the letters that were meant as correction or advice and thus a re-iteration of the gospel would be superfluous.

CyberLN's picture
Reedemption, I’ve observed a

Reedemption, I’ve observed a distinct difference in your ability to correctly write in the English language from one post to another. For example, I compared your writing in this OP, https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/7-questions-every-ath... to the above.
Please explain.

Grinseed's picture
I have noticed that. In one

I have noticed that. In one post he writes mangled mispelt gibberish like old Fergie use to and almost immediately after composes a post that makes Cal look illiterate.
Something definitely smells.

Talyyn's picture
@reedemption

@reedemption

And yet those "thousands" of records are only a small part of everything that was written in that period. But that is somewhat besides the point.

I tend to disagree, because of these "lost" written, we can not have a true assessment of what the human guy names Jesus said, since what you have now as the gospels was decided arbitrary.

The primary historians were Romans who were mostly concerned about, well, Rome. A lower-class guy off in a distant province who didn't pose any real problems to the Romans and got killed early in his life would have been negligible to them, even if there were reported miracles.

Yes... Romans would be totally duplicitous but supernaturally-inclined poor and oppressed people who would tell the truth and only the truth.

Also, if a magical rabbi existed,, they would write about simply because he would be a threat to their hegemony.

Also you part about dating the writing of the manuscripts bears no consequences about the existence or not of the supernatural...

This is an odd claim. You say none of them "Not one of the 5000 people fed on bread and fish thought to mention it." What's the basis for them not mentioning it? Lack of written statements by them? Even if they did do that, regular erosion has removed most documents from that era.

Are you telling me that there would have been absolutely no people, Romans or Jews, with the writing skills when 500 zombies were roaming the city? Jerusalem? Really?

Edit

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Reed

@ Reed

Hmmm....a fully english, grammatical reply?
Standard apologetics 101?

It's a miracle!

at least 12 other Messiahs and Prophets were mentioned by the Romans and others in the 1st century. Just in case your English skills inexplicably fail you here's a quick list:
Abu Isa
Abraham Abulafia
Athronges
Simon bar Kokhba
Moses Botarel
Egyptian (prophet)
Eve Frank
Jacob Frank
Judah ben Shalom
Shukr Kuhayl I
Lukuas
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Menahem ben Judah
Mordecai Mokiach
Solomon Molcho
Moses of Crete
Nehemiah ben Hushiel
Judah Leib Prossnitz
Jacob Querido
David Reubeni
Simon of Peraea
Theudas
Sabbatai Zevi

All these guys have INDEPENDENT corroboration...look at the list anyone missing?
Maybe a prophet who attracted crowds of thousands? Who had Zombies preaching Jerusalem, who had 500 witnesses to his ascension? All of them utterly silent on the matter.., not one mention from anyone else in Jerusalem, Rome, anywhere? yet these unmemorable guys get a mention?

The one historian I corresponded with who maintained a pre Destruction of Jerusalem (70CE) position for the Authorship of the anonymous text known as 'Mark also pointed out that early versions of Mark did not contain a physical Resurrection or Ascension story. In fact the consensus seems to be that 'Mark' was based on the writings of Paul but retold in a Hellenistic storybook fashion as a very human yet magical figure based on earlier Greek and Syrian figures, not Pauls "being of the spirit", or an actual Jewish figure of the time.

While it is true that tradition states Thomas visited India, I cannot find any evidence of this claim that the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" was used at all by the Christian Church in Kerala, let alone it being the foundation or exclusive holy book prior to the 16th century.

What did you do? Google your toilet?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/apr/15/books.guardianreview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians

The First Epistle of Clement refers to both Peter and Paul.

This anonymous document of course would refer to both Peter and Paul...as figures described in the Christian texts available at the turn of the 1st century.
In fact the existence of the writer of the Epistles (let's call him 'Paul') is not disputed.
Peter is 'mentioned' in Clement, and his alleged martyrdom, which was the stuff of tales and myth in the late 1st and early second century. But nothing to corroborate, merely an allusion to common folklore of the time.

1 Clement is dated to about 96CE and therefore not a contemporary record.

The point is that one cannot claim Paul's lack of mentioning such things in the letters is somehow indicative of them being false or unknown when he would have little reason to mention them given he had already gone and preached to them in the past. That is when he would have shared any such information, not in the letters that were meant as correction or advice and thus a re-iteration of the gospel would be superfluous.

Please do not ascribe motivations to someone you do not know. Facts are facts. Not one mention...even in Paul.

The fact remains that; there is not ONE contemporary mention of the Jesus figure as described in the gospels. none.

No amount of well written english apologetics will change that. It is an historical fact.

Congratulations on your new found language and literacy skills, it must be a relief to you.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Reed

@ Reed

And just to show you how unbiased I am in historical terms and how I loathe apologetics that are spouted by someone who does no fuckling research at all:

Paul was in good company as a writer who just did not mention all those miracles.....
Here is a list of 1st Century writers we could reasonably expect to have mentioned Jesus and just didn't. They are all available in any good library or online.
Seneca The Younger (4 BCE - 65 CE)
Very prolific writer. So much so that later christians actually forged documents and letters from Seneca mentioning Christ, because, well, he just didn't. Not once. And he would have.
Philo (20 BCE - 50 CE) 
Philo Judaeus:
He wrote books about Jewish religion and history, and would have mentioned Jesus Christ had he known of him.
Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul,
he had family in Jerusalem,
he wrote a about the times and peoples in Jerusalem, Samaria and Judea as well other places,
he wrote a fairly critical commentary on Pilate
He developed the concept of "Logos" (an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God"
(Wikipedia)
Pliny The Elder (23 - 79 CE)
Another Roman writer, prolific and a tattle tale. Also an amateur astronomer who doesn't mention the Star of Bethlehem, the darkness at the Crucifixion or jesus at all. He does mention many other individuals including; writers,politicians, revolutionaries,poets and artists. He would have mentioned this "extraordinary "son of god" if he had heard of him.
Petronius (c. 27 - 66)
Was a professional taker of the piss. He was the Roman equivalent of SNL, the "Life of Brian " and "The Holy Grail" a la Monty Python. Nothing was sacred to him. He wrote the Satyricon covering just about every event and important person of the times including crucifixion (no jesus jokes) a Guarded tomb (no Jesus jokes or references) and another tomb scene where someone sees a person they mistake for a resurrection (no jesus jokes or references) All very strange considering he wrote about (and it is bloody funny) Sophocles, Cato, Pompeii, Hannibal and assorted Governors and politicians. Strange that he didn't mention the new christian cult of Jesus as both Peter and Paul were (according to the NT) in Rome preaching at the time, but he did mention bathtimes,dinner, wine, Arabs and Lawyers.
Lucan (39 - 65)
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century. In this large poem he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing. He :
mentions an event from 56 CE,
refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
referred to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world, refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.

Feel free to copy with or without acknowledgement for the education of those poor souls that insist there is indeed contemporary independent evidence of the Jewish Jesus character.
Oh and anyone who wants to really debate this subject I have a list of approx 100 or so writers up to the 2nd Century CE (including some christians) that could have mentioned those amazing happenings of approx 28 - 33 CE, but, unaccountably, did not.

This list makes up a fraction of the "thousands of pieces of work we have from the 1st Century CE"....and not one mention of the jesus figure as described in the gospels...

In perspective, that is like Optimus Prime actually appearing in Trafalgar square,at midday in the week, repeatedly transforming, and then doing donuts around Nelson, and not one Newspaper, Radio Station, TV reporter or columnist (never mind Jo public) writing a single damn thing about it.

Simon Moon's picture
According to the nyth in the

According to the myth in the book, Jesus died at 3:00 PM on a Friday and vacated the tomb at dawn on Sunday.

That sound like about 40 hours to me...

Grinseed's picture
@Reedemption

@Reedemption

Ahh Tektonics, the christian apologist haven.

My favourite Tektonic article concerns comparisons between Jesus and Apollonius. You will no doubt, I am sure, be familiar with it Reedemption.

Apollonius vs Jesus. Who. Will. Win?

Not surprisingly Tektonics strives to deny any real similarities between the life of this Pythogorean pagan saviour figure and their own Jesus. They don't deny the striking similarities, the virgin birth, the itinerant preaching and the claims to knowledge about a supreme deity, the persecution, trial and crucifiction (Jesus resurrected but Apollonius just survives, as many others have been recorded as doing.)

But they write off Apollonius because his story includes the advice of not taking hot baths, his having confronted a hobgoblin and chased it off with insults, as well as a satyr he puts to sleep by offering it wine, his claims to being able to speak all human and bird languages.

All this,Tektonics claims, are nothing as dignified as what is found in the gospels, "the Gospels lack the outrageous and dramatic flair that is found in the story of Apollonius. Thus they should not be used in comparison."

Well I dont know, but stories about Jesus walking on water, having a mother who was immaculately conceived and never having tasted death, changing water into wine, driving demons, like Legion, out of a human victim into the bodies of pigs and driving them over a cliff, withering plants on demand for not bearing fruit out of season, advising all not to bother with washing hands before a meal, whose death caused an earthquake, and an unnatural darkening at noon, and whose resurrection awoke long dead denizens of the cemetary he was in, inviting doubters to manually probe his fatal wounds and then floating up into the sky out of sight in front of 500 nameless, assumingly illiterate, witnesses, all certainly smacks of outrageous and dramatic flair to me.

Neither story deserves to be considered any more truthful than the hundreds if not thousands of similar miracle stories that emerged in the early centuries.

Most important difference between Jesus and Apollonius is that while Jesus declared faith the way to finding god, Apollonius declared it was 'nous' (knowledge) because his deist version of an supreme god was the ultimate form of nous.

So you've been warned. There is likely to be a test (and not multiple choice) to get into heaven and it will be based on general knowledge. Better study up sinners.

Cognostic's picture
Hmmmm ? Apollonius, Greek.

Hmmmm ? Apollonius, Greek. Part of Greek culture. New Testament, Greek, Part of Greek culture? Apolloniun, actual records of his existence. Jesus, nothing. Apollonius of Tyana depicted on a coins. Jesus depicted on, on, on, well.... nothing. Life of Apollonius of Tyana, a lengthy, novelistic biography written by the sophist Philostratus at the request of empress Julia Domna. She died in 217 AD. The Bible written by.... um..... ahhhh...... every scribe with a stylus that was lost to history. And upon his death Apollonius underwent a heavenly assumption. The tomb in Tyana (received) his body, but in truth heaven received him so that he might drive out the pains of men. Apollonius, the first Jesus story? Well..... If we don't count Lord Krishna, Inanna, Romulus, Dionysus, or Heracles or the Buddha.

Grinseed's picture
Cog, I really think you are a

Cog, I really think you are a shoo in for this general knowledge test. Can I look into your soul and copy your answers?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.