aa5874

But the entire biography of Jesus of the NT strikes me as nonsense, too.

And perhaps the reason why the author of the Jesus story claimed Jesus was crucified and then resurrected is because they had read of the crucifixions witnessed by Josephus where one of them survived.

But in any event, whether Jesus was beheaded, shot with an arrow, burnt at the stake, or committed suicide is almost irrelevant, the biography of Jesus is fundamentally implausible and filled with fiction.

Therefore I MUST reject Jesus of the NT until new credible information is found to corroborate his existence.

Transponder

That's a possible explanation. I wondered whether the gospel - writers took the crucifixions of so many Jews in the jewish wars as a starting point. But then again. With the image of so many anti-roman rebels (which is how the romans and the Jews' long -time enemies, the greeks, would have seen them), would they have chosen crucifixion for their god when choosing stoning (which is evidently very attractive to them, though they cannot actually say that Jesus got stoned) would have enabled them to say clearly that the Jews did for Jesus, instead of having to get Rome (in the form of Pilate) off the hook?

Sorry, but the more I look at it, the more internal and circumstantial evidence makes me think that the crucifixion was an embarrassing fact.

If that is so, then the charge must be fact, too and that is not the blasphemy reason, but the charge given, which is rebellion. That said, I also reject the Jesus of the NT. I agree that the biography of Jesus is filled with fiction., and I think that the redaction method can show what is fiction.

I have read a lot of redaction criticism books, but they all seem to have trouble in going back to the beginning and starting out without preconceptions.

Incidentally, i have read through the excellent sticky thread on Galatians. My impression is that, aside from debate about whether Paul visited Jerusalem one or twice and when, and whether he lied, or whether some Christian tampered with the text, it looks as though Paul did visit Jerusalem and had contact with Jesus' followers there (though Paul and Acts both whitewash what occurred there) and, it follows, followers must have had someone to follow.

I repeat that it is a serious problem that anyone doing a serious enough act of rebellion to be nailed up by Pilate should have had a mention in Josephus or Philo or some other writer, and there isn't. It may be that Jesus is wholly fiction but so far, I can't entirely buy that.

What I can do, though, is apply redaction criticism to the gospels and ask: "suppose it was true, without preconceptions, if the gospels can be reconciled (and they would have to be) what would that reveal as a reconciled account of the gospel story?" It doesn't leave what the Christians would like.

So (sorry for the length) it doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus is real, or fiction; the gospel story as regards the Christian message, certainly IS fiction.

I know they can explain everything, by which I mean they rewrite, retranslate, cherry - pick and ignore. However, rather in the way they approach evolution, it is a case of ignoring the way the evidence points and relying on faith "The big picture" - the 'context' as they call it.

aa5874

But, as you have already admitted that the Jesus story is fundamentally fiction, then the internal and circumstantial evidence may or is likely to be erroneous, too.

You seem not to understand or may not realize the events leading up to the crucifixion may also be fiction.

Once you examine the trial itself, it will be come clear that it is extremely unlikely that Pilate would have had Jesus crucified. Pilate had already declared that he found no fault with Jesus, in effect Jesus was innocent.

Now, based on Josephus, Pilate had Jews killed when they tried to stop his "water project". The Jews did not intimidate Pilate.

Also in Josephus, it was likely that Jesus would just have been beaten and then ignored as a madman, based on the story about Jesus the son of Ananus.

And the question to you is why would only the crucifixion be true, when if that is the case, any person who knew the real Jesus would then realise immediately that the all the other parts of the story about Jesus would be complete fiction?

Would you write the so-called biography of a well-known person with only one event that is truthful and all the rest fictitious, and not with plausible fiction, but embarrassingly IMPLAUSIBLE and IMPROBABLE fiction?

Would you write that JFK was assasinated and then proceed to claim that JFK was the offspring of the Holy, raised the dead, resurrected and ascended to heaven and will be coming back a second time for dead people?

Do you think any body in the world would take you seriously, maybe seriously mad.

You would be immediately discredited, and found to be completely bogus, dishonest and without credibilty.

The Jesus story appears to be a complete package of fiction written, possibly and initially, by a single unknown author very long after the supposed events, maybe late 1st century or beyond, and then was believed to be true by people.

Later, perhaps in the 2nd century, many versions of the Jesus stories were written as more and more people began to believe that the Jesus stories were true.

bacht

You're right, and I don't have an answer to the origin of the cross idea (there was a recent thread here discussing it). The point is that it was an established piece of Christian teaching that Mark could use, maybe to make an ironic point about the Roman destruction of the "suffering servant"?

Transponder

To this, I can only say: because some things can be shown to be absurd, must we reject the whole lot. Yes, the depiction of Pilate is at variance with history, but, if you then reject the whole lot you are overlooking the fact that the Gospels all say that Pilate DID execute Jesus, and executed him for rebellion, despite the gospels trying to make it look - in a very contradictory and implausible way - that the Jews were behind it all. You see that, if you look at it rather than just dismissing it out of hand, the evidence is there. evidence that there is an embarrassing fact that the Gospel writers were trying to cover up.

I might say that your argument is similar to claiming that, because there are disagreements about who shot JFK, the whole thing is a fake.

Yes, if Jesus was going around acting as Jesus, son of Ananias did (1). But the internal evidence indicates that Jesus was not. The real story shows another Jesus and the Jesus-as-Christ is a Christian cover-up.

Surely you must see where I am coming from? The gospels were written considerably after events. They were written for Gentiles rather than Jews, otherwise Aramaic terms would not need translation. The basic fact - the 'embarrassing facts' of which I speak - were known to the Jews and any involved Romans or Greeks of the time. That was not the problem. The problem was, first, overcoming the disappointment of a failed messiah, by suggesting that his spirit, of course, went back to sit with God, and then providing proof for the doubting gentiles, writing up miracles, prophecy and a bodily resurrection, since a spiritual one is, after all, is all in the head.

(1) Whoopee - more notes. "Jesus, the son of Ananias, was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the Jewish war against Rome began in 66 CE, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction" (good old Wiki). Incidentally, aa5874, do you believe in prophecy? I don't. But Josephus says clearly that this bod spoke true prophecy. Do you believe it? If not, should you not dismiss this as invention or do you accept a basic fact embellished a bit to make it look good?

Transponder

I recall that Paul is a bit vague about how Jesus actually died. There are references to a 'tree' and hints of Jesus being stoned. The references to the cross are about a 'stumbling block'. I take that as Paul being aware that the embarrassing fact of Jesus having been crucified is a problem in selling Jesus to the gentiles.

Be happy to look at any particular relerences, with particular interest in Paul lifting quotes from the OT which is his source rather than any gospel tradition. It was mentioned that Paul quotes the last supper line. I did point out that it works just as well if the Gospel original quoted Paul.

I'm not being dogmatic, here. There is too much vagarity to be definite, but I'm convinced that, by applying study and method, we can show what it more likely and what is not. That's why I have particular interest in the redaction method, provided that problems are not explained away with "Who knows anything for sure? We must have faith".

Maybe I could mention here that a problem for me was (as Christian apologists say) Paul states clearly that Jesus appeared to a number of people, and finally, to him. Well, wasn't that proof of the resurrection? I should have known better. I was starting with the preconception of a bodily resurrection. It took a while to click that, even in Acts (a very mytholigized account) it is a Jesus in the head. It is not a solid Jesus with holes in.

If one thinks in terms of a spiritual resurrection, then Jesus will, of course, appear to anyone that believes enough. The evidence for the solid-body resurrection then relies on the gospel accounts. And they are problematic indeed.

bacht

I agree that Mark may have been forced to acknowledge embarassing information about Jesus if 1) Mark himself believed in a flesh-and-blood Galilean and 2) Mark was trying to write straight history/biography. In a recent thread about Mark it was pointed out that we can't be sure exactly what his intent was in writing this document. Is it satire, or polemic, or condemnation of the whole messiah idea?

The apologist assumption is that Mark was trying to write something historically "true". I don't think scholars consider this to be obvious.

aa5874

But, the information in gMark did not claim Jesus was executed for rebellion at all, Pilate, based on gMark, claimed Jesus was brought before him because of ENVY.

Mark 15.10 What you are attempting to do, in an ocean of fiction, is to claim that you know what is true or likely to have occured when it is absolutely not necessary.

Again, if Jesus was a real human being, was it not even more embarrassing for an author to claim the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary, and that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost when it would have been totally untrue and Mary, for the rest of her life on earth, would have known that the author's story was complete fiction.

Would it not have been extremely embarrassing to Mary for all the authors to claim Jesus resurrected when she knew that his body was never found? I would think that Mary would have liked to have given her son a proper burial, did the some of the disciples dump his body, or buried him unknown to the mother, to make it seem like a resurrection?

Embarrassment cannot be history. Events in the NT should be corroborated before they can even be thought to have occurred.

But, that is not my argument at all. I did not mention anything about multiple assasination stories of JFK or disagreements about who shot JFK.

Please, read my post carefully.

I asked you if you would write a so-called biography about JFK where he was assasinated but everything else about him is fiction, that is, he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, raised the dead, resurrected, ascended and is coming back for dead people?

What benefit would it be to you in claiming JFK was actually shot in a motorcade and then proceed to write total fiction about him and have people read your biography, when his family, acquaintances and all those who knew JFK would immediately realise you are a fairy tale writer?

Now Christians are claimed to be honest and truthful people, why would they write total fiction except for the crucifixion and have people read this fiction including the parents, immediate family, acquaintances, and followers?

It would appear the Jesus storiy is a complete package of fiction, including the crucifixion, but was believed to be true.

Transponder

[QUOTE=aa5874;5536063] You are really disappointing me. You are cherry - picking your evidence like a Theist. And in something which you consider fiction. Mark supposes something he did not know - what Pilate thought about the reason the Sanhedrin had trumped up charges against jesus. What you ignore is:

" 26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS"

The charge was one that had more to do with sedition or rebellion. Nothing to do with envy.

Nothing of the sort. What I am trying to do in an ocean of fiction is to see what, once the contradictions have been cleared away, is left.

What is true or not matters little to the writers of the gospels. What matters is proving their faith. If that entails belittling Mary in order to enhance Jesus as offspring of the Holy spirit, then by golly that is what they would - and did - do. And that is another embarrassing fact, of course.

Ah, now you are asking. I would not be at all doubtful that Mary would have wanted her son, crucified or not, to have a proper burial. And there were the disciples all distraught because their leader was dead. Then some bright spark says "Well, he isn't really dead, you know, he's gone back to heaven, in the spirit, of course". And Paul, in turn, bought that and imagined that Jesus was talking to him telling him whatever he wanted to hear.

And, when the gospels came to be written (later, but maybe not as late as Eusebius, as you suggest) the Jewish war was over and the gospels were written by Paulinist Christians. What did they care about Mary or the disciples, if they were even alive, or about what they said did or did not happen?

It would be very nice if they could be. However, we have to work with what we have. And the principle of embarrassment is an accepted device. Claiming a wonderful success can be open to doubt. if one tries to put a good face on a failure, you can bet it occured.

The Principle of Embarrassment is a principle applied to historical documents to evaluate their trustworthiness, authenticity, and veracity.

Briefly stated, the Principle is:

Statements by authors which tend to disparage their own agenda are more trustworthy. (Skepticwiki) Sorry for the wiki sourcing, but I have to find this stuff where I can. And wiki is very handy.

No. That is mine. Would you like to answer it?

Sure - if I was a true believer in the divinity of JFK. You see, your analogy is quite flawed.

Same answer - if I was in the position of a JFK gospel - writer, believing that JFK was god incarnate and writing after a war had effectively removed anyone able to gainsay me, if they could even still be living. Your analogy is flawed.

From what I have seen of Christians from Paul to posters, when justifying their faith comes up...well "Show me a Christian and I'll show you a liar". About the cross. That one damned fact was known and could not be denied. It had already been fitted in the theological package and could not be denied by Paul or his followers.

Well, at the end of this, the principle of embarrassment holds up the crucifixion as an embarrassing fact, and not, perhaps, the only one. You have only strengthened my argument.

Look. I'm not saying I am certainly right. I'm quite willing to accept that it is all fiction, if the evidence goes that way. I have already agreed that the lack of independent history bothers me. Apart from that, I'm not persuaded that there was no Christianity before Constantine - or Diocletian? That Paul is a literary invention and that the embarrassing facts in the gospels can just be ignored. So far, your efforts to argue against that have not done too well.

I'll give you another embarrassing fact that sticks in my mind. The synoptics say that Jesus at Bethsaida was seen in the presence of Moses and Elijah and God's voice booming out in approval. That's nonsense. And it's nonsense because John mentions nothing of the kind. What he says is that Jesus went into the mountains because the people wanted to take him by force to make him a king.

Now, you recall what the charge was for which Jesus was executed, according to the gospels.

bacht

The Gospel story could well be complete fiction, sprinkled with a few names and places vaguely remembered. I don't think there's much controversy about claiming that Matthew and Luke are faith documents, but if they copied Mark's original we still need to explain what he was doing and why.