Koyaanisqatsi

We do if you strip the NT Jesus of all fantastical claims; i.e., if you strip the NT as your source document(s) and then factor in that it is, again, the victors who (re)write history.

We have numerous, disparate papyrii that tell various tales of an apparently common man/Rabbi named Yeshua and we have the NT canon (and "heretical" works outside that canon) that appear to be extentions of those papyrieeee. Woo hoo!

Sorry. It's late.

Something was going on with a guy named Yeshua/Jesus (a name that does not appear in OT prophechy no matter how many degrees of separation any apologist wishes to torture) that evidently had something to do with the Romans and in keeping with what I've written about Mark (which was supposedly written long after any alleged event), I don't think it's too much of a stretch to write all that I've written.

Again, the obvious question implicit in a purely ficitonal Jesus is, "Why?" What would be the point of creating such an entirely fictional account, having no basis in real events? There was once a radical Jewish Rabbi preaching a whole bunch of sayings and non-orthodoxy and he then was fictionalized into a god crucified by the enemies of the Jews why?

Great. Well, in deconstructing mythology, it's called speculation and it's a requirement, so, you may want to shift disciplines for a while.

So, you can't deduce a likely, actual Arthur from L'morte d'Arthur?

You can if the stories provide incongruous clues, like the passion narrative :huh:

In case you hadn't noticed, you basically affirmed what I'm doing since it should be painfully obvious that the original "big foot" claim was more than likely the result of somebody seeing something happen and having other people (or even the original witness) retell and embellish the story into "Big Foot."

Given the psychology of the human animal, it is more likely that a meme is the result of augmentation of a real event, rather than a whole cloth fabrication of an alleged real event, but, again, you could be right.

I only argue, yet again, that the manner in which Mark (and Paul) writes betrays a reality easily "divined" if one just remembers how human psychology typically operates.

It could, indeed, all be pure fiction, but if it is, then I still have questions as to why it has all the appearances of revisionist history (poorly written, no less, to the astute) instead of just flat out fiction masqurading as non-fiction?

Why write it and when was it written, if indeed it were all fiction?

I've openly engaged in speculation to that end. I invite you and anyone else promoting a purely FJ to do so in kind.

aa5874

That is the precedence for Gods, all you need is a believeable story. There have been hundreds of believeable Gods, now all are myths, no longer believeable. The Jesus story is becoming more and more unbelieveable even among the so-called 'believers'.

spamandham

Well, sure, the Jesus stories could have some basis in some real history, but what is that history? Just as there might be a historical bigfoot (HB), do we really think we can figure out who/what it was/is based on the bigfoot stories? No, of course not. The myth is too far along to be able to extrapolate back. All we can do is say "well maybe it originates from contact with bears, or great apes, or maybe the story is 100,000 years old and dates back to when our ancestors really did have encounters with a bigfoot, aka neanderthal." Who knows?

If we accept that the Jesus stories have a similar origin, then we can't really conclude anything about the historical Jesus from these stories. Is there any reason King Tut could not be the 'historical Jesus' that spawned all this? How about Julius Caesar? That's the problem. While it's certainly possible there is a historical figure intertwined at the root of Christianity, we don't know anything at all about that person, including whether or not there even is such a person.

It isn't reasonable, based on stories that are almost entirely legendary and mystical in nature, to conclude anything at all about the historical figure that such stories are rooted in, if any.

Biff the unclean

A more likely to have existed fictional character appears, but you are still stuck with a fictional rather than historical figure.

Political ends, as you have already pointed out. Anti-Jewish propaganda and the later reinventing the story as pro-Constantine propaganda.
For a literary deconstruction it’s a requirement. For determining if a figure is historic it’s speculation and doesn’t work.

No, you can’t. You can find an historic figure who fills the bill, but you can’t work in the other direction.

I still haven’t noticed because it is not obvious that someone didn’t just make the Big Foot/Yeti story up to frighten children around the campfire.

The big problem is that the Jesus character is made up out of bits and pieces of already existing gods and demigods. This would strongly imply fabrication from myths and not from actual events.

“Follow the money” is good advice when trying to figure out the reasons behind any political move. This deal worked very well with Serapis, so it wouldn’t be without precedent.

Koyaanisqatsi

I think I've presented the most likely explanation and the reasons behind it, if such a person actually existed; an explanation that fits the reality of the times and the reality of the people involved and the subsequent Roman adoption of a cult they originally created for one purpose that failed, but found another purpose that succeeded.

:huh:

Koyaanisqatsi

Agreed, absolutely.

Yes, but again, why include a trial sequence at all, let alone one that could not possibly have happened the way it is depicted in Mark if the author had a choice? The only reason I can think of for the trial sequence to be included and so blatantly tortured and twisted around is if an actual person were convicted, mocked and crucified publicly; i.e., that it was a known, historical (in "recent" history to them) fact prominent enough in its occasion to warrant a revisionist propaganda to countermand or undermine its importance to the people in the region.

It's all speculation, so I'm not sure why you think saying "it doesn't work" means anything. It does work. I demonstrated how it works. Does it prove anything? No. Does it explain everything? Yes, I think it does.

Well, obviously Big Foot/Yeti is not an apt analogy to the situation and I was only responding to another poster who used it, though I would certainly find it curious, for example, that if in the Big Foot legend there was reference to a known historical event like a Roman trial and a Passover ritual that did not ever exist in any Roman records that was so distorted from any actual Roman trial if the whole thing were pure fiction and therefore did not need to include such a tortured revisionist spin.

That's my only point, I guess. Why include a Roman trial sequence if it didn't actually happen and the need, therefore was to revise history so that the blame for Jesus' death is placed on "the Jews" instead of who actually killed him, the Romans? Why exonerate Pilate, for example, at all in any of it, considering that Pilate was supposedly recalled by Rome in disgrace for his actions against the Samaritans? Why the tortured misapplication of Jewish messianic prophecy to fit an historical event that didn't happen?

If the whole thing was made up--no Jesus, no trial, no crucifixion--then why include any of it in such a way as to demonstrate a clearly revisionist spin on a history that didn't exist?

Which would make sense if it were initially a result of his martyrdom and then co-opted (poorly) by Roman propagandists. Again, there is historical precedent in our own treatment of the native American Indians and is rife throughout the Western (Christian) world. You invade a nation; asses an indigenous population's beliefs to see how they differ and you subvert them from within before introducing your own structure on top of it.

And yes, I am suggesting that what the Romans did with the NT and the Jews is the template for what we did with the Indians.

Hell, in Vietnam the catch phrase was "winning of hearts and minds." What is that if not code for "subvert their beliefs and supplant them with our own?" It's exactly what missionaries did and still try to do and it's precisely what is no doubt being contemplated if not implemented in the Middle East. We aren't going to be able to replace Islam out of whole cloth; the only hope we have (peacefully anyway) is to somehow subvert Islam from within, to twist it around into a more Western friendly theology.

Will it work? It didn't against the Jews and the Romans had to send in the "final solution," but it did work on the non-Jews and the fringe Jews and eventually became the second generation dominant cult; Islam being the third generation dominant cult all from the original Jewish cult.

Agreed that the mythology was fabricated; my argument is only that the manner in which it was written suggests to me that a pre-existing condition had to be revised; had to be shifted from the Romans being to blame for Jesus' death to "the Jews" being to blame and the Romans being exonerated of all involvement.

Again, why would that be necessary if such a condition did not already exist that needed to be revised and the blame shifted as it so blatantly and incongruously is in Paul and Mark? Why would Paul go to such great lengths to try to convince his audience that it was "the Jews" and not the Romans to blame for Jesus' death if his audience did not already blame the Romans? Why any debate at all about a bodily ascension vs. a spiritual ascension is there wasn't an actual crucifixion to begin with, merely a fictional one? Why not just write the fictional one with a bodily ascension and thereby circumvent any need for a debate? And why, in particular, include (as Mark does) the fact that the tomb is not empty; that in fact there was a "young man" sitting in the tomb telling the women that Jesus has risen. Not necessarily that he resurrected, merely that he has risen?

Again, to me, these are clues that what Mark was dealing with was a real event that had to be spun and not just making the entire thing up out of whole cloth.

:huh:

spamandham

Well, ok, if that's your case, that's your case.

As a followup question, can you think of any reason that the Essene teacher of righteousness could not have been the historical Jesus?

Koyaanisqatsi

Was the Essene teacher of righteousness the leader of an insurrectionist movement against the Roman occupation and as a result captured, tried, convicted, mocked and then crucified as a message to all would-be terrorist "Kings?"

Again, the details of the story (stripped of all religious and even socio-political layers) are that the Romans captured, tried, publicly mocked, tortured and then crucified a popular leader of some sort of radical Jewish sect circa 30 C.E. That's the bare bones; the real world scenario that anyone can take from Paul and Mark especially. If that didn't actually happen, then why make any of that up, let alone make it all up and then include such blatantly tortured revisionist "spin" to make it appear as if the Romans had no willing participation in it all; indeed, quite the contrary? Why go to such lengths as Mark does to make it seem as if Pilate was a helpless pawn in the whole sequence, desperately trying, in fact, to free the man "the crowd" of Jews all incongruously want killed?

It's already established in the story that Jesus was brought before the San Hedrin and they are hamstrung from killing him themselves right then and there, though no legitimate excuse is offered as to why and in contradiction to previous attempts to stone him to death had failled.

If it's all just anti-Judaism fiction where the Jews kill their own savior, then why not end it with the Jews directly killing their own savior? Why include the attempted and failed Roman collusion and trial and crucifixion and all of the convoluted apologetics to shift the blame off the Romans/Pilate and onto "the Jews" if the Romans hadn't actually killed him in real life?

Crucifixion as we all know does not coincide with any OT prophecy; apologists have to go to great lengths, in fact, to force partial OT prophecy to make crucifixion fit, so why make up a crucifixion event in the first place, if it didn't actually happen?

A fictionalist creating the story out of whole cloth could certainly find simpler ways to have the Jesus character emulate OT messianic prophecy as well as exonerate the Romans of any misdeeds (as is clearly the intent in Mark and with Paul) any number of ways, the easiest being to not include them at all in the story in any significant way, let alone a primary and contradictory way. Crucifixion would not only not be required, it would have to be (and has had to be) apologetically applied, which, for my money, argues against total fiction and in favor of my revisionist argument.

You wouldn't need apologists in the first place if the whole thing was just made up. If, however, one were revising history, then apologists (aka, "spin doctors") would be essential.

:huh:

spamandham

What makes you think these particular points are historical?

Three points:

1. The crux of the story could be constructed by a good period fiction writer from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, so that's a potential answer as to why, and certainly the most plausible unless you want to seriously consider the fulfillment of prophecy.

2. We can't assume the story as we know it today was all penned at once. It's possible that a few phrases here and there added to make Jews look bad, perhaps by a later gentile writer who was in conflict with Jewish Christian sects.

3. The entity who would have the greatest interest in exhonerating Rome, would of course be Rome. This might be evidence of official influence.

I would say this seems more likely to be evidence of a later redaction than anything else.

To appeal to pagan concepts of a dying and rising god perhaps?

Nazaroo

Except L. Ron Hubbard was CIA (S.A. WWII) agent who went in and defrauded a bunch of rich gay men out of their money, and essentially ran a torture-experimentation farm for the US government.