Vorkosigan

Lack of supernatural elements does not mean it is historical!!! Will you stop the trolling?

aa5874

You don't get it. It is all fiction. I don't need your fiction stories today.

The Jesus stories are 2nd myth fables. Why do you want to fabricate your own Jesus story today??

Chili

The abuse the word fiction and you must wonder why did they not just call them Dick and Jane if if was mere fiction and Hollywood would buy it too.

There was reality behind the story that is intuit to us and speaks to the inner man of humans who so can relate to it, because potentially it can ours by way undergoing, which is just opposite to rational deduction.

Bar-abbas means son of father
Pilate washing his hands means it is beyond the faculty of reason
Pilate represents the human will as local authority
It was only the Jews who did the shouting and the Romans represent to enforcement of the Immanent Will that made Herod friends with Pilate. Call it fate as a natural consequence
The upset of the temple is crucial to dead-stop religion in his life as the new creation who is the son of God instead of son of man. Crucial here is that Son of man will preach while son of God does not, which is just an early foreshadow of tragedy instead of comedy wherein Son of God is the fruit of Judaism and not just a Jew by name = Nazorean by nature, and not just 'called out of Egypt' who paid a visit Nazareth so he might be called a Nazorean.

If it was mere fiction none of this would matter and your ambition to prove anything just silly and without cause.

I actually liked that 'Peter followed Jesus from a disctance' in Mark like a shy dog would.

Adam

The next thing you’ll be telling me is that there was no Resurrection.

Well, yeah, there are problems, in addition to the high supernaturalism required. One of the four canonical gospels has no Resurrection appearance, except in the long ending (Mark 16:9-20) usually disregarded. Matthew 28 has only an appearance to the “eleven disciples” in Galilee, Luke 24 is limited to Jerusalem and its environs, and John 20 is in Jerusalem and John 21 in Galilee. My harmonization heretofore has downplayed Galilee as much as possible. Wrestling with it now for my two threads on two passes through the seven eyewitnesses,

Early Aramaic Gospels followed by
Gospel Eyewitness Sources
I may have eliminated the problem (for me at least).
The key may be where I always look last, in Matthew at 28:10 where Jesus first appears to women and not to any men. “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid: go and tell my brothers that they must leave for Galilee; there they will see me.’ “(This follows from Mark 14:28 and Mt. 26:32.) Only in this verse is the word “brothers” found. So the Resurrection appearance of Jesus in Matthew 28:16-20 was the first appearance to the “brothers”? These would be James, Joses, Jude, and Simon? True, 28:16 reads “eleven disciples”, but even according to the other gospels (John 21, anyway) the apostles (at least seven) were in Galilee some time after a week. Maybe the text underlying 28:16 read “brothers” or even “disciples”, omitting the “eleven”. The latter stages of the texts underlying gMark and gMatthew were in the charge of the “brothers” who had gone to (or perhaps never left) Galilee and knew at first hand only the resurrected Jesus in Galilee. The earlier texts (and the completed gLuke and gJohn through John 20) were controlled by the apostles in Jerusalem and focused on appearances there.
In the course of time Christians wanted to forget that “brothers” did not necessarily mean “disciples” (nor did the latter necessarily mean “apostles”). A proper distinction between the two helps to understand the apparent contradictions between the gospels.

This theory ties in nicely with my long-term understanding of the Gospel of Matthew as deriving from Jewish-Christian leaders in Jerusalem. Lacking any good eyewitness for canonical gMatthew, I often speculate on James the brother of Jesus. This adds to my reason to think so, as my above theory puts him in a position to write at first- or second-hand about Matthew 28. So much of the rest of Matthew looks second-hand at best, more likely third.

outhouse

There was!

but it was Fictional.

Sheshbazzar

The old 'plucked chicken' argument is still running around with its head cut off.
You can pluck as much of the supernatural miracle feathers out of that living dead Jee'sooce tale as you want and it still won't fly.

Adam

At least no one's claiming any more that the Resurrection accounts are contradictory.
Anyone game to be the third strike?

Sheshbazzar

They are contradictory, but it doesn't really make a hell of a lot of difference as the miraculous 'Resurrection' of a three days dead Zombie never happened no matter which way the fantasy tale is told.

Chili

Of course it does make a difference.

Have to understand that crucifixion is the crisis moment with resurrection sure to follow to bring change about, and the difference here is known as either comedy and tragedy with no if's or maybe's about it because there is only one first death, or it would not be first.

So if Matthew and Mark go back to Galilee instead of heaven that will be wherein the difference between comedy and tragedy is at, and the rest is rising action that leads up to this, and is there to make the particulars known that leads to this inevitable end.

Most interesting here is the happy-go-lucky-heavy-duty-smiling-eye-of-the-neelde-crawler who's name is Buddha, who went through the same event and wants us to know that all of it is allegory in the end.

Sheshbazzar

I remember my vow.