aa5874

The more I examine the NT and the Church writings the clearer it becomes that the Jesus of the NT was just a story either believed or intended to be believed.

If Jesus was just a man, then his teachings were extremely irrational and would have exposed him as a fraud and a most stupid one.

Let us look at the supposed predicted resurrection.

Who in their right man would teach their disciples that they would be killed and then come back to life on the third day after being buried?

How stupid can that be. This cannot be real.

Didn't this Jesus know that people were going to try to kill him just to see if he would resurrect on the third day?

Mr 9:31 - Mr 10:34 -
MARK 9.9[ Now, if Jesus was a God, then his statement about his resurrection makes absolute sense. Gods can resurrect.

But, once Jesus was just a man, he would die for his absolute stupidity and expose himself as a senseless fraudster. He dared people to kill him not realising that his resurrection prediction would fail.

Jesus of the NT was just a stupid story believed to be true. No real man can be that stupid.

The senseless proposition that Jesus was human is exposed.

avi

But, (though I do not disagree with you), let us suppose, for sake of argument, that we ought to disprove Jesus' historicity, not by logic, but by factual contradictions from within the Gospels themselves.

I wonder if there is a clue to help us, in that regard, as we ponder the language of the four gospels.

These four books are written in Greek. I assume, maybe incorrectly, that the readership was literate in Greek.

Why not imagine, for sake of discussion, a guy who is a Greek Jew, rather than a Palestinian Jew, as the hero of this story?

Where does it explicitly assert, in any of the four Gospels, that Jesus neither spoke nor understood Greek? Consider, for example,
Mark 7:26:
Well, if she were Greek, then, does it not follow that she spoke Greek to Jesus? Where, in the four gospels, does it describe Jesus as requiring a translator from Greek to Aramaic? To me, at least, it is obvious that the authors of the new testament, expected the readers to understand that Jesus was a Greek Jew, living in Jerusalem.

Leaving aside the obvious, i.e. that a God should be omniscient, and therefore able to speak, read, write, and comprehend all human languages, does it not seem curious that the four gospels are written as though not only the audience of these heavy tomes were literate in Greek, but also that the main characters too, appeared to be fluent in Greek?

If not, why would Mark explain that this woman was "ellhnis", i.e. Hellenic, in English. Is it not understood from this passage, that she spoke Greek, not Aramaic to Jesus? Would there have been any requirement for Mark to clarify her mother tongue, if she had, instead, spoken with Jesus in Aramaic? In other words, by explicitly defining this gal as Greek, is Mark then not asserting to his readers, that Jesus was fluent in Greek?

In such a case, we will find neither the mythical, nor the historical Jesus, looking for him in Aramaic records, because Jesus was viewed, by the authors of the four gospels, as a Greek citizen. Rather than view this story as one of incredible dullness and stupidity, perhaps we should be looking for clues to unmask its fictional character....?

aa5874

But, I am establishing that Jesus of the NT was too stupid or irrational to have been human.

Jesus predicted that he would be killed and would rise the third day. If Jesus was human and even illiterate, he should have abandoned this absurd teaching to his disciples.

If it is supposed Jesus was crucified, and did die, then he would have shown the whole of Judea that he was a fraud.

Examine John 17.1 before Jesus was betrayed and ultimately crucified. The hour to expose the fraud has come, Jesus was too stupid to understand.

If Jesus was human, why did he not realize that instead of glory he would have destroyed his credibility and his organization?

He would die and rot like any human who was crucified and his disciples would have been in jeopardy.

The Jesus story only makes sense if Jesus was actually a God or was just a belief.

The human only Jesus is totally irrational.

These are not the teachings of a human being.

Mark 9:31 - And on the third day, his body vanished, and later Paul would hear the voice of Jesus after a BOLT of Lightning from heaven made him blind.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi and aa5874,

aa5874 seems to be arguing that the obvious ridiculousness of Jesus' preachings should be used to show that he was an invented character and Avi seems to be arguing that the problematical contradictions within the story should be used.

Both can be important factors to determining the non/historical status of the character. Both should be used.

Each method can be attacked. Unfortunately, history shows that a great number of people are willing to follow persons who make even the most absurd pronouncements. So the absurdity and triteness of Jesus' pronouncements can only be given small weight for the unlikeliness of his existence. Likewise, contradictions in story narratives can easily be discounted by pointing to mistakes by story transmitters. One can go to two television or internet reports on the same news story and find factual contradictions.

It is only the accumulation of these types of elements (absurdity of speech, unlikely knowledge of a language of lead character) which are more naturally associated with fiction than history that produces a strong case for a mythological Jesus.

One element that, for me, seems important in putting the story into the fiction category is that the crucifixion happens on Passover or Passover eve in Jerusalem. Passover was the most important Jewish holiday of the year at the time, with hundreds of thousands of visitors coming to Jerusalem for sacrificing in the temple. It appears to be the very last day of the year where public officials, either Jews or Romans, would want to cause any kind of public disturbance by publicly crucifying anybody. The Romans and Jews would have no way of knowing the reaction of hundreds of thousands of Jewish visitors to the sight of a crucified Jewish rebel as they entered or left
the city. They could not be sure that it would not have caused a great deal of ill feeling. Especially a sign "King of the Jews" hanging next to the poor man dying on a crucifix would have enraged or puzzled many citizens. At the very least it would have distracted from the Passover Festival itself.
As a fictive story element, however, it makes sense.

Philo says this about Passover (The Special Laws II (Spec. 2.145-2.147)):

The author(s) would have been pointing out that the Jews when sacrificing for their deliverance by their God, ironically actually sacrificed their deliverer sent by their God.

Many fictive narratives today are set on Christian Day or Christmas Eve to play off of other narratives associated with that Holiday. For example, an animated version of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" is opening in American theaters this week.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

I totally disagree that it can be successfully attacked. The THIRD day resurrection is HUGE.

The downright stupid senseless claim, as written, would have destroyed the credibility of Jesus and his organisation once he was killed, within THREE DAYS.

Jesus did not say "I will rise again like a thief in the night" at some arbitrary future time, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples he would be killed and be raised on the THIRD DAY.

In 72 hours after his death, he must be deemed a fraud unless the disciples are also part of a fraudulent scheme.

Whether people of antiquity believed the implausible or that Jesus believed he was God, his statement as found in the NT is so irrational that it has fatally undermined the historicity of Jesus.

If Jesus was human, and was the leader of an organisation, then he just could not be that dumb.

Every body would be just waiting for the day that he would be killed, and the sooner the better, even the disciples would have wanted Jesus dead to see if his THIRD DAY prediction would come true.

Jesus must have been a story written long after the supposed resurrection and BELIEVED to be true.

A Pauline writer claimed he and over 500 saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

The 1st bishop of Rome, Peter, ate food, boiled or roast fish, prepared by Jesus who was supposed to be dead for over three days.

It is obvious that the resurrection must be a belief.

Jesus was just a belief, if not, the human Jesus is senseless.

aa5874

Now, imagine this scenario. Jesus was killed, crucified, stoned or clubbed to death, or whatever, 72 hours later he is publicly declared a fraud. His body is rotting in full view of the populace.His disciples are terrified and in hiding.

Sometime later a madman named Paul, after being struck by a bolt of lightning declares that the resurrection of Jesus was to abolish the Laws of the God of Moses and to save mankind from sin.

He even perhaps proudly claim he did not get his Gospel from man, but from the same man whose body rotted in view of the public.

Paul wake up!!

The HJ is senseless.

avi

Thank you PhilosopherJay, for your typical insightful synthesis. Outstanding.
Yes, and while aa5874 rightfully points out some of the absurdities of "Jesus' pronouncements", what troubles me, much more, is the paucity of any kind of statement from this supposedly brilliant 'god', whether trite, absurd, or contradictory.

Alexander of Macedonia comes to mind. Quiet, powerful dictator, short life span, with however, counterintuitively, an enormous political influence, despite few, if any, extant writings. Socrates, Siddhartha, Mohammed, and LaoZi too, apparently wrote nothing, though their speeches were documented more thoroughly, than the fictional Jesus'.

I do not share your enthusiasm for this rationale, because I am unaware of any evidence, one way or the other, regarding crucifixion during, or avoiding, Jewish religious holidays in the Roman Colonies. I have no idea to what extent, the Romans tolerated, or persecuted, those whose religious practices opposed the Roman's Gods. I have read of purges and killings of Christians by the Romans, and I suppose therefore, that they would have had few scruples about killing as well, a few hundred Jews or Zoroastrians, or whatever.

I imagine, perhaps incorrectly, that Palestine was tightly regulated by the Roman Army, and that any Jewish, or other sect's religious fantasies had little influence on the military's occupation of Jerusalem. Perhaps I overestimate the army's power, but, on the other hand, since we live in a civilian regulated regime, is it possible that we underestimate the military's role in the conduct of daily life in the "holy land"?


1. You may be correct, Jay, but, is there some data to support this assertion?
2. How do we know that, in that era, Passover was so significant, in Jerusalem?
3. Are you sure that "hundreds of thousands" of visitors came to a city with a population of half a million? Where did they sleep? What did they eat? Where did the water come from? Were the public sanitary facilities so advanced that the city could endure an influx equivalent to half its population, without a major cholera epidemic resulting?
4. Let's suppose you are correct. The Roman army controlled the roads. If the Roman army denied passage, those "hundreds of thousands" of visitors could easily have been turned away.
5. Even assuming a doubling of the population of Jerusalem, why would you assume, or perhaps there is evidence to support your conviction, that, as with the current and previous generations, people would not have waited, patiently, for hours, to observe a spectacle, especially one with gore and bloodshed. Admittedly, the Romans picked an obscure, and difficult location for the fictional Jesus' execution, but, even so, a group would surely have followed this brigand, this blasphemer, this revolutionary, this zealot, to watch his sufferings, and to witness his final hours. That particular group may, or may not, have been particularly observant of Jewish religious holidays....
Again, why do we believe this to be the case? Why not argue, conversely, that the Roman officials, who ran Jerusalem, (not the Jewish rabbanim, nor the Jewish puppet king), wanted to ensure the maximum publicity to expose the consequences of opposing their iron-fisted rule. What better opportunity to demonstrate to all Jews, that they had better cooperate, or else!

If that were the case, then the Roman officials would never have executed anyone. I don't share your sanguine opinion of Roman military governance. I imagine that the soldiers and their leaders, were brutal, harsh, and unrelenting. I doubt that they were sensitive to ethic habits, customs, or ceremonies. I sincerely disagree, Jay, with your notion that a revolutionary traitor, one who actively urged the overthrow of the Roman occupiers, could not have been executed, by the Roman army, on a day associated with one or another traditional holiday. Was that the typical Roman army behaviour in confrontations with the Germanic tribes? How about with the Babylonians, Hittites, Sassanids, Persians? North Africans? British? Egyptians? Iberian Peninsula? Macedonia? Greece itself? Why should the Jews be treated differently, than any of the other false (i.e. non-Roman) religions?

aa5874

I am not dealing with "some of the absurdities of "Jesus' pronouncement", I dealing specifically with the claim of the resurrection by Jesus in the NT.

The claim by the authors of the Gospels that Jesus taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised from the dead on the third day implies that all the Gospel authors were writing about a God or believed Jesus was a God or wanted their audience to believe Jesus was a God.

The prediction by Jesus, if he was a man, would have failed within 72 hours of his death. Jesus would have been known to be a MOST STUPID fraudster, a most irrational false prophet, who dared people to kill him to expose his stupidity and his cult would have to flee for their safety and would have been effectively destroyed and discredited.

And as soon as the Pauline writer claimed that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state and that without the resurrection mankind would remain in sin, then, this writer has internally confirmed that Jesus only makes sense if he was a God or believed to be a God.

The resurrection story where Jesus predicted that he would be raised on the THIRD DAY could only be a story that was believed or intended to be believed as true.

The HJ is senseless.

aa5874

As I have stated before the HJ is highly irrational, senseless.

The NT and Church writers presented Jesus as a God/man entity who had the ability to resurrect within a tight predicted three-day window, and Jesus did resurrect within that very small window of three days with witnesses, according to these writers.

The 1st bishop of Rome, Peter, was a witness to the empty tomb and did converse with Jesus, while eating fish cooked by the resurrected Jesus, and then sometime later saw Jesus going through a cloud.

It must be blatantly obvious that if Jesus did live and was human that there could have been no witnesses for a resurrection or an ascension. The Jesus story where Jesus resurrected could have been believed to be true by the authors or intended for the audience to believe.

However, a Pauline writer will settle the matter, this writer, once and for all, will tell us clearly what Jesus was NOT.

This Pauline writer, a supposed contemporary of Jesus, will internally confirm that the HJ is senseless.

Paul's Jesus was NOT a man.

Galatians 1.1 It is confirmed. It is crystal clear.

Paul was NOT the apostle of a man.

Paul did NOT become an apostle BY man.

THE HJ IS SENSELESS.

Clivedurdle

Except Herod's Temple, the largest temple on the planet, was built with the explicit approval of the Romans.

Judaism did not oppose the Roman gods - the belief in that is later xian propaganda.