Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 10-01-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

How plausible is it that a preacher from Galillee with a fairly sizable following would be able to engineer events so successfully that he would wind up being "sacrificed" on Passover Week so he could become the symbolic "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world?

If a preacher from Galilee ended up crucified in Jerusalem by the authorities, it is highly probable that it would be at one of the three great feasts (Passover Pentecost Tabernacles) which was when Jews from outlying areas such as Galilee were likely to be in Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

No Robots · 10-01-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

With historical figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, I would say that less than 5% of what we read about them is implausible or rooted in the supernatural. With Jesus, that percentage goes way up, so much so that the implausible and the supernatural become utterly entwined with the few "naturalistic" elements of his life. It's not like we have any rationalistic accounts of his life on which to base a plausible biography.

It seems to me that when ALL the accounts of a person's life are this steeped in the fantastical and the absurd, perhaps that's an indication that no real person lies at the root of the story.

You have to look at who is communicating the story. With men like Alexander and Caesar, you have armies of trained scribes who keep track of their every utterance. With Christ, you have an illiterate, credulous rabble despised by its own temporal and spiritual leaders.

andrewcriddle · 10-01-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Hence, I'm trying to figure out at what point secular historians stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater and come up with what they believe is a "true" Jesus. With historical figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, I would say that less than 5% of what we read about them is implausible or rooted in the supernatural.

Do you mean that less than 5% of what is found in ancient sources about say Alexander the Great is implausible or rooted in the supernatural ?

If so I would disagree; (even ignoring the largely fictional Alexander Romance) considerably more than 5% of what ancient sources say about Alexander is implausible and/or legendary.

Andrew Criddle

VoxRat · 10-01-2007, 01:35 PM

Is the Passion account plausible?

No.

Thanks for asking!

Chris Weimer · 10-01-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Is the Passion account plausible?

No.

Thanks for asking!

Oh yes, because you alone are the sole source of all reason and enlightenment! You obviously must be god, since you expect all of us to merely take your answer as the divine truth.

Why do people even bother posting garbage like this? At least Roland had the dignity to engage in discussion. But this?

Amaleq13 · 10-01-2007, 02:54 PM

Please avoid content-free posts as they add nothing to the discussion while wasting bandwidth. Comments on content-free posts should also be avoided for the same reason.

Thanks in advance,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

VoxRat · 10-01-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Please avoid content-free posts as they add nothing to the discussion while wasting bandwidth. Comments on content-free posts should also be avoided for the same reason.

Thanks in advance,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Yes, well... sorry about that.

It's just that it seems like such an odd question. Because either you're a believer or not. If you're not, well, of course the story is implausible. If you are, then you necessarily allow for all sorts of magical, supernatural things that render the question of "plausibility" moot. What's not plausible if the agent calling the shots is omnipotent and omniscient?

Toto · 10-01-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

...
It's just that it seems like such an odd question. Because either you're a believer or not. If you're not, well, of course the story is implausible. If you are, then you necessarily allow for all sorts of magical, supernatural things that render the question of "plausibility" moot. What's not plausible if the agent calling the shots is omnipotent and omniscient?

Leave out the supernatural elements. Is it plausible that a Galilean wandering teacher got himself crucified on Passover in some scenario that bears some resemblance to the gospel story?

Roland · 10-01-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Please avoid content-free posts as they add nothing to the discussion while wasting bandwidth. Comments on content-free posts should also be avoided for the same reason.

Thanks in advance,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Yes, well... sorry about that.

It's just that it seems like such an odd question. Because either you're a believer or not. If you're not, well, of course the story is implausible. If you are, then you necessarily allow for all sorts of magical, supernatural things that render the question of "plausibility" moot. What's not plausible if the agent calling the shots is omnipotent and omniscient?

Just to clear up the question a bit: I mentioned in the OP that I was not really addressing believers, since of course you're right that for them nothing is implausible if God is in charge. I was really asking those on here who DON'T accept the divine nature of scripture but still think there's a "kernel of truth" to the story. How much of the story has to be rooted in fact to still be viable? To me, the scenario is so finely worked out and symbol-laden that, at least as written, it resembles fiction much more than it does fact. Maybe this is because, as an AP literature teacher in high school for the past 26 years, I am too primed to see the mechanics of artifice and fiction in what I read. Who knows?

Anyway, thanks to all those who responded to the thread. I have enjoyed and learned much from the replies.

Godless Dave · 10-01-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

I realize that Jesus was a very common name. It's still suspicious that Christianity's savior figure just happens to have that name.

Why?
Is it suspicious that Lou Gehrig developed Lou Gehrig's disease?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2007, 01:35 PM	#24
VoxRat Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,768	Is the Passion account plausible? No. Thanks for asking!

10-01-2007, 02:54 PM	#26
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Please avoid content-free posts as they add nothing to the discussion while wasting bandwidth. Comments on content-free posts should also be avoided for the same reason. Thanks in advance, Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.