Today shalt thou be with me in paradise, not tomorrow, nor on the third day, but truly, today

 

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. 

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμήν λέγω σοι σήμερον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.

 

-- Luke 23:43 

σήμερον is obviously in emphatic position. The promise to the penitent thief is that there will be no lingering death, and the conviction of Jesus is firm belief in immediate immortality for both himself and this thief, not in future resurrection.

The Roman Catholic miracle machine just keeps pumping them out, this time in the spirit of trendy inclusiveness lol

They really had to reach back for this one.

 Lourdes confirms 71st miracle — the first for an English speaker; miracle occurred in 1926

The miracle at the French Marian shrine actually occurred in 1923, but what is important, you see, is that the Lourdes Bureau confirmed it in 1926. But because of communication difficulties, the Archbishop of Liverpool never got the necessary documentation until now.

The subject had lost use of his right arm, suffered from epileptic seizures, and had partial paralysis in his legs due to "medical treatment" after being wounded in 1915 during the Great War. He was "immediately, instantly" cured by immersion in the waters of the spring at Lourdes, on the third day of a pilgrimage, of course. 

“And John Traynor is the first case of healing of an English-speaking patient,” de Franciscis said. “Most of the miracles are French. There are Italians too, a Belgian and a German. But there were not any English speakers yet.”

“I am personally sensitive to this,” the doctor concluded with a smile. “I myself am Italian, born in Naples, but of an American mother, from Connecticut!”

 

 

Jesus' encounter with the Sadducees is pro-Pauline propaganda, not history

God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

-- Matthew 22:32

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.

-- Mark 12:27

For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

-- Luke 20:38

The idea that Jesus got into a dust-up with the Sadducees over the intermediate state and resurrection and basically ended up taking the position of the Pharisees for himself is absurd. This is evidence of the later Pauline consensus contaminating the tradition, at the expense of the eschatology of the historical Jesus.

Talk of an intermediate state, for example, between death and final judgment where the dead go to be with the Lord interjects a fatal pause to the present time, which for Jesus is pregnant with eschatological expectation. That pause necessarily would have undercut the present sense of urgency which informed the call to repent and escape what is surely coming.

With an intermediate state awaiting at death instead of judgment imminently confronting, one rationalizes away the extraordinary current moment in favor of the continuation of human history as it has always continued.

 

The need to leave all and follow Jesus evaporates (Matthew 4; Mark 10; Luke 5; Luke 18), replaced by less consequential belief.

 

The establishment of a settled life and therefore a church is made possible, which accomodates itself to time instead of revolting against it.

 

A Gentile mission, specifically ruled out by Jesus (Matthew 10), becomes possible in Athens where "in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) has more currency than "the kingdom of God is at hand" in Jerusalem (Mark 1:15). The kingdom focused on Jerusalem recedes from view, as does the God who is coming there soon to judge this generation's guilt for the blood of all the prophets!

The problem for historians is that there was never a sound proponent of Jesus' eschatology who followed him who could match the thoroughgoing Pauline theology. And why should have such a person arisen if his followers "after the flesh" had truly understood Jesus as they must have? Their expectation also would have continued to be for an imminent end, even despite the death and resurrection of their master: "Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). There was no impetus to document anything for posterity, since posterity would never come to exist. This means that the gospels must be viewed with great suspicion everywhere, for they are the products of the subsequent, already compromised, period. They are not of the Urzeit. Only out of respect for Jesus do they preserve any of the conflicting evidence from his teaching.

Consider that if an intermediate state is put forward in the mouth of Jesus, all sense of urgency about the imminent coming judgment he predicted would necessarily melt away with authority. Belief in the restyled message of atonement could more easily become the message, relieving everyone of the onerous original obligations of discipleship. The obvious failure of the kingdom's coming meant Paul's rationalizations were ready made for the occasion, and came as a relief. In he stepped and supplied the solution to the ongoing disappointment caused by the delay of the parousia, and the death of the disciples' generation simply made all this a fait accompli.

Jesus did not view himself as Paul viewed him. "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more" (2 Corinthians 5:16). Jesus viewed himself as the people viewed him, as a prophet. Thinking himself destined for death as so many of the prophets before him were, Jesus is unique because he thought of himself as the final prophet. Even as he's about to die he can say that history as we know it is about to end, too:

"[Y]e shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

-- Mark 14:62

"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

-- Luke 11:51

This is where Muhammad got his idea to style himself as the final prophet, but armed with a sword, centuries later! More than most New Testament critics of modern times, Muhammad long before sensed the inadequacy of the gospels' handling of Jesus' eschatological message. And if Paul of Tarsus could receive direct revelations from God and refound a movement, so much more the better. So could he!

There is no dying and rising as a sacrifice for sins in Jesus' mind, only prophets perishing unjustly in Jerusalem. The rising is added under the influence of hysterical women, and an unstable Pharisee, Paul.

The fanatical Benjaminite had recourse to the resurrected Jesus to make sense of his own personal conversion experience, which was really a mental breakdown if one is to be perfectly frank about it. After all, after a surprising, brief period of activity as a Jesus advocate instead of as the well known and feared Jesus persecutor he had recently been, Paul disappears for a period of ten years, if the chronology and the account are to be believed. This is hardly the behavior of a settled individual convinced by his experiences one way or another, but of a still-troubled person. It was during this time that Paul must have developed his ideas of Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection under the influence of the direct, supernatural visions and revelations he claimed were the sole basis of his gospel: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:12). What these really were is anyone's guess, but in his own time people already were calling him crazy. To be sure they are at the same time productive of ingenious solutions, as his letters testify. These solutions eventually supplied Paul with a ready escape from the offense of his own Jewish particularity, which he experienced as a Roman citizen in his Asian backwater, and at the same time validated the Pharisaic impulse, which he imbibed as a youth and to which he remained committed, to democratize Temple holiness by making proselytes and founding synagogues. His possession of the Roman franchise reinforced his ideas of human equality under God and their legitimacy.

The body of Jesus temporarily and hastily buried was missing on Easter morn because it was moved. The disciples to a man did not believe Jesus rose from the dead, only the women in their hysteria at discovering this did. (If one is looking for the incipient enthusiasm later displayed by early Christianity described in Acts, it is here). The gospels' portrayal of the general dim pall of ignorance of a predicted rising on the third day which hung over the movement despite all the supposed evidence to the contrary makes no sense if Jesus were in fact a resurrection preacher and intermediate state believer first and foremost. That "evidence" became part of the narrative ex post facto. The idea otherwise should not have been rejected so out of hand by his very own disciples as it was. The plainest explanation for their unbelief on the third day is that they had no prior knowledge of the idea of resurrection on the third day, and that because Jesus had never preached it.

Paul the Apostle is the true founder of Christianity. He co-opted the sectarian Jewish eschatological religion preached by Jesus. An enthusiast for Pharisaism to the end, Paul's personal ambition was to make Judaism safe as a universal religion, relegating present Jerusalem to the discarded past: "She is in slavery with her children" (Galatians 4:25). By turning Jesus into a Pharisee, he succeeded.

Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

-- Luke 13:33f.

The absence of "church", "saints" and "early catholicism"

You will search in vain for church and saints [ἐκκλησία and ἁγίων] in the gospels, save for Matthew 16:18, Matthew 18:17 and Matthew 27:52 (and what "saints" meant in the latter isn't exactly the same idea which we find after the gospels, but let's not open that can of worms right now).

The gospels dubiously tell us Jesus predicted his future death and resurrection on the third day, but the future church and its many members? not so much, which only underscores the dubiosity of the third-day rising predictions. (For fun, I resurrect the word "dubiosity", which had fallen into disuse already by the time of Samuel Johnson).

You would think that a guy who knew he was going to rise from the dead and found a church would have said much more about it. After all, predicting the future church is small potatoes compared with predicting your own crucifixion and resurrection on the third day. Jesus' imagination was clearly focused on something less pedestrian than the now interminable church age and the salvation of its billions of goyim.

And you would also think the church would have made him talk much more about it.

Talk of the "church" only in a little corner of Matthew is probably "early catholicism" at work, or at least something like it. It looks suspiciously similar to the insertion of the third-day-rising predictions themselves. It too is propaganda, but on a much smaller scale.

This tells us something very important.

The absence of "church" from the gospel tradition, even from John, testifies to, if not the sway of a smoldering conception of the eschatological future imagined by Jesus, at least to the enduring cognitive dissonance the memory of that still produced. The problem still being wrestled with in the gospels is the death of Jesus and the failure of the end of the world to materialize, not something else. This dissonance probably had everything to do with the production of the written gospels in the first place. The emphasis on, and the similarity of, the passion narratives in the gospels both make that plain.

The absence of "church" as a category, however, points to an earlier stage in this process of self-reflection than we find in the epistles. We are not yet at the later self-referential stage of the church found in Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament after the gospels where "church" and "saints" are most definitely used as routine categories. This means the material in the gospels, if not the gospels themselves, dates much earlier than is generally appreciated. The absence of "church" in the gospels is thus similar in significance for their dating to the gospels' failure to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple. Together they point to a date for the gospels before 70, perhaps well before.

It is difficult to believe that when the rest of the New Testament after the Fourth Gospel is loaded with uses of "church" and "saints" that the gospels could possibly come from that era.

The hypothesis of an intrusion of "early catholicism" has not been without its problems, however, for example for the composition of Luke-Acts. It is almost inconceivable that the repeated use of "church" in Acts, for example, comes from the very same hand as gave us the Gospel of Luke, or at least that Acts comes from the same time period of composition as the gospel, a point which perhaps speaks against the two-volume history hypothesis of Luke-Acts. But it is more inconceivable that on the original conception in New Testament scholarship of "early catholicism" at work all over the place in Luke's Gospel that it could be an exponent of that without once mentioning the church. To make matters worse for the theory as originally conceived, the third gospel's unique witness to some of Jesus' most pointed eschatological assertions hardly fits the relatively more mundane future ecclesiastical setting from which it is supposed to have sprung.

What this means is that as a phenomenon "early catholicism" remains a useful hypothetical category whose content has to be rethought and scaled back. The gospels' solution to the eschatological dilemma which occasioned their composition in the first place supplies that content. Early catholicism is thus at the same time a lot earlier than originally conceived and dedicated to a different object.

It seems best to view the gospels as earlier than 70, at least in spirit, and as attempts to rewrite the narrative of the failed eschatological message of Jesus.

What if the Jesus Movement wasn't originally a resurrection cult at all?

For a resurrection cult which came to believe in Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' closest followers seem like the biggest bunch of dimwits about it despite all of Jesus' "predictions" that he would rise on the third day.

One begins in Matthew 12:40 with the prediction that the Son of Man would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth".

Then follow all the rising-on-the-third-day predictions in Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19 and 26:32.

Mark has these in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and 14:28.

Luke in 9:22, 44, 18:33, and ex post facto 24:6ff., 21, 26, 46.

Yet there is unaccountable bewilderment on the part of the disciples about Jesus' prediction: "what the rising from the dead should mean" (Mark 9:10).

There is even fear to inquire: "But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him" (Mark 9:32).

You have to wonder about such dumbfoundedness given the ubiquity of the topic in the gospels otherwise.

In Matthew 10:8 Jesus sent out these same disciples to "raise the dead"! Well, did they?

Resurrections are proof of Jesus' ministry (Matthew 11:5, Luke 7:14, 22 and 8:54).

And speculation existed that Jesus himself was John the Baptist risen from the dead (Matthew 14:2), or one of the prophets (Luke 9:8, 19). Like they hadn't heard that.

You also have to wonder about other perplexing behavior.

Why would the women followers of Jesus bother to prepare spices for the burial of his body and bring them on the third day if he actually predicted that he would die and rise, and they believed this? (Mark 16:1, Luke 23: 56, Luke 24:1)

Even the authorities knew of this prediction, we are led to understand, and took measures to secure against it. (Matthew 27:63f. "that deceiver said 'After three days I will rise again'") The unbelievers knew, but Jesus' own followers did not? (John 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead")

None of this is satisfactory.

The predictions of Jesus' death and rising on the third day all look to be revisionist history, imported into the narrative from the future when reflection had settled on a resurrection narrative.

That narrative was largely Pauline. It made resurrection the centerpiece of the religion, replacing Jesus' original message of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. As such the narrative was a Christian form of Pharisaism, in which Paul's genius as a theologian invented the new availability of individual holiness apart from the temple cult, secured through the once for all sacrifice of God's own son.

Jesus meanwhile had intended none of this, not to die for the sins of Israel let alone the whole world. If he intended the replacement of the temple cult, it was with individual repentance and mercy, prayer, and delight in the law of the Lord, bringing an end to the shedding of blood in preparation for the descent of the heavenly temple when God himself would establish justice and peace once and for all, and remove everything from Israel which offended. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done . . .."

The historical kernel on which was built a religion wholly different from this was simply Jesus' own conviction that as a prophet he would likely be killed.

Out of the molehill of this sober expectation and its unfortunate realization was made the historical accident, the mountain we call Christianity.

Is there a biological basis for resurrection on the third day?

Panel from Roman sarcophagus, c. 350, depicting victory wreath of Christ

Seen here:

When a doctor declares a person dead, some of their body may still be alive and kicking – at least for a day or two. New evidence in animals suggests that many genes go on working for up to 48 hours after the lights have gone out. ... Hundreds of genes with different functions “woke up” immediately after death. These included fetal development genes that usually turn off after birth, as well as genes that have previously been associated with cancer. Their activity peaked about 24 hours after death. ... If genes can be active up to 48 hours after death, is the person technically still alive at that point?

Luke's Jesus predicts it, but Luke never says that Pontius Pilate scourged Jesus or that Jesus was scourged

And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

-- Luke 18:33

Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

-- Matthew 27:26

And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

-- Mark 15:15

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

-- John 19:1