A JEWISH sect, I mean. Not Christian, but Jewish.
These may be the only people in Jewish/Christian mythology to come back from the dead but other mythologies are rife with such stories.
Cite? 
The term “mythology” is inflammatory, Diogenes (at least to Christians). But, to address your point: I was responding solely within the context (the Bible) in which Jojo’s error was derived. If anyone had wanted to extend the realm to include all belief systems, they could’ve spoken up about it, too. I’m only going to post about that which is within my realm of knowledge & experience. I know I’m a newbie, but I think that’s the accepted protocol here.
Yeah, the followers of The Way (invariant term used by the early Christians of themselves) were people who regarded themselves as Jews who had experienced the coming of the Messiah and were free from the constraints of the Law by his fiat.
But as to when the line was drawn between Christianity and Judaism, I see it as the empowerment at Pentecost causing the Eleven and their followers to start up a new organization (which, you’ll note, is described immediately after the Pentecost experience).
Apropos of this – I was raised a Methodist, and we always observed Aldersgate Sunday, commemorating when John Wesley’s heart was “strangely warmed” and he began Methodism.
However, March 3 in the Episcopal Church is the feast of John and Charles Wesley, priests of the Church of England, who never left it. The Methodist Societies they founded were groups within the Church and dedicated to reviving her. Only after their deaths did the Methodists separate themselves into a separate denomination.
So when did Methodism start? And is your definition based more on your own subjective choices than on the historical facts? I think the same could be said for Christianity itself.
Only if you don’t know what the word means. “Mythology” does not mean “false.” It’s description of genre. It’s a sacred or allegorical story intended to convey a greater spiritual truth. A myth may also be incidentally factually true, but factual truth does not exclude it as myth.
Having said that, I freely admit that I am an agnostic and that I presume that any account of supernatural event, Biblical or otherwise, is fiction until proven otherwise.
If you’re going to hang around here you’re going to find that many, many people here will freely and unapologetically discuss Biblical events as pure fiction and others who take it as literal fact, and yet others who find a mixture of both. If you find it “imflammatory” for people not to automatically accept the literal truth of scripture, I fear you will be enflamed quite often.
Here is Jojo’s quote:
She didn’t limit it to a Biblical context, she said “The whole history of humanity.”
The history of humanity contains countless tales of people coming back from the dead. The stories in the Bible are not remarkable in this detail, neither are they supported by any more evidence.
I will, as a Christian, chime in with support for the anthropological understanding of mythology (as Diogenes used it).
We’ve even discussed that point in the last few months:
Religion and Myth
Diogenes, to be fair, Jojo did explicitly ask for the Christian point of view in the OP, not a debate on the truth of Christianity, and so it was not unreasonable in that context for her to assume the Christian POV in her remarks. Padmaraga is not the only one who’s finding your tone a bit excessively inflammatory.
**
I wasn’t saying that I was enflamed. Just that I thought your choice of words seemed designed to enflame. Since your last post, I stand corrected. I’m not one of those people who demands that others accept the literal truth of scripture, just one that asks that others respect my belief in it.
**
OK, maybe I didn’t word that well. I think you’ll agree that my examples prove that the statement was erroneous even if one only has knowledge of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Then, if one wants to add other belief systems, the error is compounded. Since I have limited (in many cases no) knowledge of belief systems other than Christianity and a smattering of Judaism, I used the examples I knew as evidence. They still are good evidence even if you have more evidence than I have.
I am going to hang around here (I hope!), and hope to get the hang of things. Your (everyone’s) help (and patience) is much appreciated while I work on it. It’s never my intent to piss people off, but it can happen without intent, I’m afraid.
I think maybe I’ve got a different bible to everyone else.
Diogenes said:
Um…it does in my bible. Towards the end, just after the crucifixion bit.
Although, all the different gospel writers (and Paul) claim that he was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. Whilst you are right that you need to be cautious about citing the bible as historical fact, it’s not completely worthless either.
Leaving aside the religious angle, it’s still a bunch of writing from people who were (sorta) around at the time so surely it’s still evidence?
Whether you believe it or not is up to you but you seem to be dismissing the bible totally as evidence. I can’t see how you can properly do that. It’s written evidence same as Homer or Aristotle or Beowolf or King Lear or anything else that is a written historical document.
Padmaraga said:
Although Jesus says she’s only sleeping, not dead. Maybe he meant it literally? Maybe she was in some kind of coma and the miracle Jesus performed was waking her up, not bringing her back from the beyond?
Re pentecost, would it be true to say that this was the moment when christians themselves saw themselves as a distinct sect, but that the resurrection was the actual “big event”, that turned Jesus from mere preacher with a few neat magic tricks up his sleeve into something else altogether?
Just for the record, there is pretty common consent among Bible scholars that Mark 16:9-20, describing Resurrection appearances, was a later addition to the Gospel as written – and if the original ending went beyond 16:8 (as is likely; it ends with a conjunction), it’s been lost. There are two alternate endings attested in early manuscripts; there’s some extensive discussion of them, including my retyping of the English text of them, in this thread over on Brian’s Comparative Religion website.
However, in the canonical 16:6, an angel informs Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, who have gone to embalm Jesus’s body, that he has risen, so I believe that what Diogenes may have intended to say is that there are no Resurrection appearances in (the original) Mark – there certainly is an indication that the Resurrection supposedly happened, if one will accept the word of an angelic apparition.
**
Maybe he’s referring to the fact that some (earliest?) manuscripts don’t include verses 9-20 of Chapter 16. But Mark 16:6 clearly states “You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen!”, and it’s in all the manuscripts.
**
Well, the use of the term “sleeping” for death is found elsewhere in the NT, but I’ll grant that some might interpret that the people in verse 35 who say that the girl is dead could have been mistaken (the text doesn’t authoritatively state she was dead, just that "some came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house who said, “Your daughter is dead…”). Most scholars interpret the text to mean she was dead, but perhaps there is some ambiguity. I’d never heard anyone express that opinion before, actually. I always took it that He used that expression to downplay the situation; in verse 43 “He commanded them strictly that no one should know it…”.
As has already been pointed out, the resurrection appearances in Mark were tacked on later by early Christian copyists. It’s not clear that the original ending, as stated, referred to a physical resurrection or to an early “ascension” into heaven, a motif which had some precedent in Jewish mythology.
It’s not reliable as a historical source. It is a clearly religious collection of writing and there is no external corroboration for most of its details. When we are dealing with claims about supernatural events it’s only fair to require some irrefutable evidence (from a purely empirical standpoint) before we accept them as fact.
Evidence of what?
Except for Aristotle, everything you mentioned is fiction (in the case of King Lear, simply popular entertainment). I’m not sure what you mean by taking these works as “evidence.” Historically significant, certainly. Great literature too, and even profound in some aspects. The Iliad and The Odyssey contain some great psychological insights, and can be read for those, for the pure stories and for many other reasons, but they are not read as history in any meaningful sense, even if some core historical elements are embedded in the works. Yes, there was a Troy and, it seems, a Trojan War, but no one would then extropolate that the supernatural events in the epic had been given any factual support.
Now this is true. That’s my fault for skimming the OP and seeing it as an invitation to spout of with my personal erudition. :o
My bad, Carol. You are right. I shouldn’t have barged into this thread. My apologies to Jojo and to Padmaraga.
I will now withdraw from this thread and observe from the sidelines (unless, somebody actually wants my opinion, then I’ll be happy to spout once again. 
)
I’m going to disagree with this point.
All the evidence points to Mark extending to at least 16:8. (I would tend to go with those who agree that this was the original ending, but no one seriously doubts that anything was added up to this point.) In 16:6, the angel declares that Jesus has arisen, [symbol]hgerqh[/symbol], and does not use the word associated with the theological concept of the resurrection, [symbol]anastasis[/symbol]. In verses 7 and 8, the angel then declares that Jesus has gone off to Galilee where he will meet, again, with his disciples. This is not the action of a person getting an early entrance to heaven. Whatever actually happened, Mark clearly attests to Jesus rising from the dead in a physical form.
I should have placed an “IMO” in that post. I’m not entirely convinced that the original story would have continued with a post resurrection appearance by Jesus or that his presence in Galilee would have been a physical one. I base my slight doubt on the fact that it would seem illogical to replace one appearance narrative with another one. This makes me suspect that the original ending may have gone in a different direction that the physical appearances of the other gospels. The man at the tomb (the text doesn’t actually call him an “angel” btw, that’s a traditional inference) says that they will “see” him at Galilee, but the manner in which they 'saw" him may not have been the old holey-handed physical appearance of the other gospels. It may have had something more of a spiritual or mystical aspect to it. I don’t make a strong assertion about this, as I say, it’s a minor question on my part. I would like to know why the original ending was redacted. It’s perfectly reasonable (and in fact the default presumption) that this was an indication of a physical resurrection. I also confess to a skeptical bias and a desire to look for alternative, naturalistic origins to the resurrection story. I shouldn’t have framed my personal bias so categorically in this case.
I don’t believe that the “original ending” would have continued in any direction. A couple of scholars have demonstrated that (at least in Koine Greek–not in Latin) a sentence may end in [symbol]gar[/symbol] (“for” or “because”), and Mark’s style is quite abrupt to begin with. I see Mark getting to the point where he indicates that Jesus has physically left the tomb and simply saying (to himself) “I’m done; that’s all I wanted to say.”
Obviously, without Mark’s original galleys, I am merely speculating, as well.
It still seems strange, though, that Mark would write such a big build up and then withhold the climax of the physical appearance. It would seem to leave the audience hanging and frustrated that there is no pay-off. I am influenced somewhat by John Shelby Spong on this issue who believes that Mark was speaking only of a spiritual resurrection, but obviously we have no way to verify or falsify these speculations. As I said, my skepticism on this matter is mild. I think that Mark probably intended to imply some sort of resurrection, but I’m not positive he meant to imply that it was physical, and I think there’s a slight chance that the apostles may have “seen” only a spiritual ascension or perhaps had some more mystic experience of his presense.
I just have some questions about Mark’s ending, I wouldn’t attempt to formally argue any particular thesis in front of my old New Testament prof, though.